Wedger’s ‘Foxy’ story: Not the cover-up he claims

More than a year ago, this blog published a post in which we questioned the veracity of some of the tales told by former Metropolitan Police officer Jon Wedger.

In particular, we wondered about his story of a woman nicknamed “Foxy”, who he claimed was grooming and trafficking teen-aged girls. This woman, Wedger stated, was never brought to justice, despite his own heroic efforts.

Here’s the story, as told to Brian Gerrish in 2016. Speaking of a 14-year-old girl, Wedger said,

And she’d made an allegation that this woman Foxy had been pimping her out; and she’d made a couple of allegations, and they hadn’t gone anywhere. So what I was told was, ‘Can you look into it? She’s made allegations before; she’s a bit of a nightmare; she might be lying, she might not; but she’s a bit persistent; see what you can do.’ So I went, ‘OK.’ So I, I went to see the girl, made an appointment and was told she’s very anti-police, you know, and she is a bit of a handful. …

And, we sat down, we had a chat. We..interviewed her, and she told me the story start to finish. And she’s the product of broken family: her mother was a drug addict, the father was absent, and it, the mother was buying drugs off this girl Foxy, and Foxy then started to groom her, because her mother was unable to look after her.

She then ended up living with the grandparents but the grandparents lived in a red light area. And so Foxy would go and pick this young girl up, and, basic grooming; look after her, show her some attention, a bit of love, do her hair for her, give her make-up – but then introduced her to cannabis; got her smoking cannabis, and then, would then take her to hotels.

These were bottom-end hotels; these were the sort of places where a lot of the builders would go to, you know. So there’d be like converted Victorian houses, or whatever. In one, one area of London there’s a big row of them. And a lot of them were, were maintenance and building workers from the North would come down and stay in these hotels.

So Foxy had an agreement with the night porters, and the night porters would make a room available for her. So she would take her clients in there; so she’d go in there with a client, start having sex and have this young girl there watching, and then encourage the young girl to get involved.

And then from there, she would then start giving the young girl the bigger drugs, so the Class A drugs is what they want the kids on. Once they’ve got them on the Class A drugs—especially the crack cocaine—it’s got a, a real grip on them, you know. And this girl had no way of getting these drugs, so she relied on Foxy as her medicine lady, you know. So she got her on crack cocaine, and then she started then pimping the young girl out, getting the young girl involved. And then she would then get the girl to introduce her friends to it.

So she was then introducing her friends—also come from families that, parents were drug addicts, or absent or whatever. And so, or in the care system; in fact all the kids we dealt with were subject to care orders, whether they were residential care orders or, or just normal care orders, you know. But they’re all known to Social Services and from ‘At Risk’ backgrounds.

And so, she gave me the name of another kid. So I went to see that girl; the story was identical, and the other thing was they used to say, ‘Well what about the police? Do the police ever get involved?’ And both girls said,’Well, we would get hidden in a bush; if we was put on the street, if the police came Foxy would hide us in a bush; but she, she knew the coppers anyway, she’d just flirt with them and they would just let her go.’

And she said, ‘But also there’s a judge, there’s a judge involved.’ I said, ‘What do you mean?’ She went, ‘Oh, judge at the magistrates’ court. So when Foxy’s charge goes before the judge, the judge is her client anyway. So the judge lets her off.’

So I checked this out; I went through the disposal history, the criminal history of this girl, and found she keeps getting bind-overs, this Foxy. So, I thought,’Right, well, there’s something in this.’

As we pointed out a year ago, the “Foxy” story has the ring of truth…right up to the point where she would find herself in front of a particular magistrate, who happened to be one of her clients. According to Wedger, this magistrate would always let Foxy off.

In fact, this is not how magistrates court works. 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.

According to Wedger, his superior officers reacted to his breakthrough report on this case by insisting he stop pursuing it, putting him on stress leave, and then threatening that if he did not leave the case alone, he would “lose everything”:

I said, ‘Well, what have I done?’… I, you know, I really thought I done well; I’d exposed this’….

And he turned round to me and he said, ‘Well that’s a problem; you’ve exposed it.’ He said,’We knew you could dig, but we never knew you could dig that deep.’

He then said, ‘What you’ve exposed is gonna F us, past, present and future. This cannot, and will not, ever get out.’

He said, ‘If you mention a word of this, you will be thrown to the wolves.’ He then said, ‘You will lose everything – and that means your job, your home, your kids, you will lose it all. You need to shut your F-ing mouth.’

And I was just dumbstruck. I was like, ‘For real?’ And he said, ‘We never thought you would dig this deep. You have no understanding how deep this goes.’

All very Serpico, no?

The problem is, it’s just not true.

Wedger’s bosses did not intervene to protect “Foxy”, and there was no conspiracy which “went all the way to the top”. The truth is much less melodramatic than Wedger would have us believe.

The real “Foxy”

“Foxy”, whose real name is Fiona Walsh, is a woman from West Kilburn who was arrested in March 2006. In May 2007 she was tried and convicted on an 18-count indictment, which included one count of causing a child to engage in sexual activity and supplying her with crack cocaine and attempting to procure a second youngster to have unlawful sexual intercourse and supplying her with hard drugs. Walsh pleaded guilty at an earlier hearing to conspiracy to supply Class A substances while on remand in Holloway Prison.

Far from getting a rap on the knuckles and being set free to continue destroying the lives of young girls, as Wedger has claimed on multiple occasions, “Foxy” was sentenced to 10 years in prison, following more than a year on remand in custody.

Here’s how the Ham&High newspaper described Walsh/Foxy’s crimes. Note the similarities with Wedger’s version:

A pimp who “launched the careers” of a string of teenage prostitutes in Paddington has been jailed for 10 years.

Fiona Walsh, 32, from Third Avenue, West Kilburn, lured vulnerable girls as young as 12 off the streets with crack cocaine, Inner London Crown Court heard.

She encouraged them to have sex with clients at her home, in the back streets of Paddington and in local hotels – offering one of the girls £125 to perform oral sex on a client.

Five girls initially came forward to police and charges were pressed in relation to two girls, aged 12 and 15 at the time of the offences.

The girls were both from ‘unstable’ backgrounds and cannot be named.

Sentencing, His Honour Judge Roger Chapple said: “(Girl A) was only 12 when she had the misfortune to meet you.

“You started her upon a wretched downward spiral of drugs and prostitution.

“You took gross advantage of her by supplying her with drugs. You of all people should know the pernicious effect of Class A drugs.

“You launched her career. You crushed whatever hope there may have been for her to lead a happy and fulfilled life.”

Earlier, Joanna Korner QC, prosecuting, told the court how Walsh had “cynically and cold-bloodedly befriended” both girls for her own benefit.

She described the girls as “easy meat” because they came from dysfunctional backgrounds and gave details of a string of incidents when the girls were forced to prostitute themselves in order to fund their spiralling drug addictions.

“According to (girl A), Fiona supplied her with crack within two weeks of meeting her,” said Ms Korner.

“(Girl A) described one incident in 2005 when she had absconded from the care of social services and she met Fiona outside the Monkey Puzzle pub in Sussex Gardens. Fiona sent her to Normandie Hotel with a client and she received £90.”

Walsh also offered girl B £125 to have oral sex with a punter in a backstreet.

And, on another occasion when she refused to prostitute herself with two men, Walsh pushed her into a bathroom in a flat yelling: “I don’t get it for nothing, neither do you. You’re going to have to sleep with them both.”

Ms Korner said Walsh had controlled girl A for more than two years from Christmas of 2003 and girl B for one month in May 2003.

Girl B is now aged 19 and in a stable relationship with two children. Girl A’s life may have been ruined forever, the court heard.

Walsh was arrested in March 2006 and later admitted her guilt on a string of charges. Her sentence includes three years for conspiracy to supply heroin to prisoners in Holloway while she was on remand.

Jonny Weeks, Ham&High, 17 May 2007

But is Fiona Walsh really “Foxy”?

Aside from the fact that Walsh’s story is virtually identical to the tale told by Wedger, how do we know that Walsh and “Foxy” are one and the same?

At the time, this story received significant media coverage. It was reported (twice) by BBC News, Metro, and the Irish Examiner. as well as by a now-defunct site called “”.

While that site is no longer accessible online, an abbreviated version of its coverage was picked up by a, a site which collects news stories about the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

This version of the Walsh story clarifies that she was indeed known as “Foxy”:

A female Fagin, who lured girls as young as 12 into prostitution by getting them hooked on crack, was jailed for ten years today (Wed). Fiona Walsh—known as Foxy—plied the girls with highly addictive drug (sic) and then forced them to have sex with ‘punters’ in alleyways and hotel rooms to fund their addiction. Mother-of-two Walsh met the victims through a mutual friend and gained their trust by taking them on shopping trips and buying them designer clothes and handbags.

So much for Wedger’s attempt to turn the story of Z and “Foxy” into some sort of mysterious cover-up: in its time, it was quite widespread.

Interesting that instead of citing Walsh by her real name, which would have made the story very easy for anybody to verify, Wedger chose to use her nickname—which is only accessible at one rather obscure site on the internet.

It’s almost as if Wedger has been trying to cover up the fact that there was no cover-up. That wouldn’t be a ploy to sell the story to the conspiraloon set, now would it?

84 thoughts on “Wedger’s ‘Foxy’ story: Not the cover-up he claims

  1. As if more were needed to show the story of the client judge isn’t true, a bind over isn’t a sentence, it’s usually imposed for minor disorder where the CPS have dropped the case, so a convicted offender couldn’t keep getting bindovers. And the criminal history wouldn’t show the judge, just the court. And if she was charged with plain prostitution, its not imprisonable, so nothing very terrible could have been imposed. Sounds like a combination of the real case and “Presumed Innocent”.

    Liked by 3 people

    • The Daily Star is of course revered for it’s excellence and accuracy.

      As for someone in the BBC’s music department.
      I’m sure they would be delighted to think they wield so much power and strike fear into the hearts of Chief Constables around the country.
      I’m surprised this top copper didn’t say to Wedger : “for Pete’s sake steer clear off the canteen workers..too close to to the VIP Elites”.
      There are so many holes in that Express tale it really is scandalous. They are of course picked apart by EC’s excellent investigation but simple facts like the Magistrate being unable to chose cases stands out as I would have thought everyone knows that judges etc cannot pick and choose cases.

      Publications like the Star should be hauled over the coals for publishing absurd but dangerous lies and for simply accepting hogwash as fact.

      Can someone illuminate me as to what advantage pedophiles would have by upending their lives and flocking to canal boats en masse, pricey these days with the cost of moorings?.

      Why would it matter if they were not on the electoral roll? If they have committed serious crimes they are registered with police and have reporting obligations but can live wherever they want. Police have endless ways to track people and electoral rolls are the last thing they use. Usually only debt collectors use them.

      Wedger is telling a blatant fib as boats with permanent moorings are treated exactly the same way as a house when it comes to obligations. I know because I worked for a few years in the 70s for a boss who lived with his family on a canal boat off Cheyne Walk in Chelsea and he offered it to me for a very low price when he planned to move as his family got bigger and I went into every aspect of living on a boat.
      The big rats one would spot on the Thames at low tide put me right off.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was surprised about two months ago when watching a piece on our regional news about something or other and the guy that the reporter was talking to happened to be wearing one of those t-shirts with Jon Wedgers face on it.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Nice digging, EC.

    One thing that puts Wedger into perspective for me is that even the hoaxer fruitloops no longer trust him!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Devine @ 36:08 – “…with the immigrants being flooded into here and turning it into Sharia…”

      And at 54:44 – “And what comes when Sharia comes through and they’re coming through chopping people’s heads off in the street? I know what’s coming, mate… I’ve got nothing wrong right where with any skin coloured person… it’s not the person… it’s the deeds…”

      There’s something really annoying about racists with bad grammar.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Devine’s inevitable anti-Hoaxtead rant comes at 51:00.

      “This Hoaxtead Research group is GCHQ, MI5 and so on and so forth” 😂


      • Because believing a that a bunch of people, who disagree with almost everything he says, might get together to challenge nonsense is too much for him.

        If I was GCHQ, MI5 etc the videos of those Hampstead children WOULD NOT be on the internet.

        Liked by 3 people

      • You have my upmost respect Tinribs for making yourself endure listening to not only Andy Devine but Angie as well.

        Liked by 3 people

  3. Well done EC nice reporting. far as I’m concerned wedger has been caught bank to rights lying this article is clear proof. His profiting for his own financial gain his nothing more than a scammer out to make a few quid off the back of survivors stories. just like his mate bill the phoney did, i feel he should have been let into the IICSA inquiry if only to tear his story apart and show him up for what he really is a fake and fraudster.his been brought in by bill to discredit survivors that much is clear his promoting all the SRA stories that have been found to be nonsense in court. And interviewing people who’s been jailed and calling them credible witnesses. It just shows the lengths he will go to to push his bs out all for the love of money.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. This still from ‘A Hard Day’s Night’ is currently doing the rounds among the fruitloops and apparently proves that Wilfred Brambell was a paedophile and that Paul McCartney must also be one because, er, he once appeared in a movie with him. Am I missing something or are conspiraloons really that ignorant?

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hmm, I wonder if the loons subscribe to the “Well, he looks like one” school of idiocy. I have heard certain circles call those type of glasses “paedo glasses”, in poor taste jest, I might add.

      Smegging morons, the lot of them.

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Pingback: REBLOG: Wedger’s ‘Foxy’ story: Not the cover-up he claims – Spin vs Truth

  6. I know little of Mr Wedger but the story relayed by him and that revealed by EC do appear very similar.

    Tinribs was musing whether people really were “that ignorant”. I’m afraid there does seem to be some nuttiness (and entitlement) doing the rounds, at least on the internet – and not just among people who subscribe to conspiracy theories. For example, a story from r/entitledparents on YouTube – an entitled parent tries to take a wheelchair off a disabled person. I realise people can make stories up but this one seems authentic enough to me.


  7. An update. Harald Link is well aware of a scammer pretending to be him and of King Johns charades. The Thai authorities have been informed.

    Liked by 7 people

  8. Off topic but if Brexit is “pushed back” will it affect “King” John’s proposed visit to this green and pleasant isle?

    Liked by 1 person

  9. The judge was a client and let her off bit, sounds like the plot from the film Personal Services, based on the life of Cynthia Payne.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Yes, except that I wouldn’t hire Wedger as a scriptwriter on a bet.

      And he turned round to me and he said, ‘Well that’s a problem; you’ve exposed it.’ He said,’We knew you could dig, but we never knew you could dig that deep.’ He then said, ‘What you’ve exposed is gonna F us, past, present and future. This cannot, and will not, ever get out.’ He said, ‘If you mention a word of this, you will be thrown to the wolves.’ He then said, ‘You will lose everything – and that means your job, your home, your kids, you will lose it all. You need to shut your F-ing mouth.’ And I was just dumbstruck. I was like, ‘For real?’ And he said, ‘We never thought you would dig this deep. You have no understanding how deep this goes.’

      Seriously? This isn’t even grade B movie material, it’s grade Z.

      Liked by 2 people

      • It does sound as if Mr Wedger had a bit of a breakdown, and I suspect he’s tying the results of that into cases he was involved in or around and then building all of it into a construction of his own. This “thrown to the wolves” speech could be drawn from a well-meaning colleage trying to persuade him to stop the insanity or he’d lose his job.

        Liked by 1 person

        • We do know that he had begun to associate with people like Bill Maloney while he was still a serving officer, which seems to me to point to his beginning to adopt some ideas which would not have gone over well at work.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Wedger appears to me to be the type of man that could quite easily be influenced by others. He certainly doesn’t come across as a cynical seen it all before type of copper.

            Liked by 2 people

      • Well, I think I might have been suggesting, not very seriously, that Wedgie had at the very least been influenced by the film.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I’ve chatted with Cynthia Payne. It was at the aftershow for a Duran Duran “secret” show in 1988 (They were called “The Krush Brothers”). She was accompanied by Screaming Lord Sutch. A really nice person, and so was Mr Screaming!

      Liked by 4 people

    • Anybody that can take advantage of young girls and get them addicted to drugs before pimping them out is a lowlife but it seems so much worse when it is a woman doing it.

      Liked by 3 people

    • ‘They are blocking us’ ‘the sound is really bad’ ‘it’s the government’

      No fwit- you and your chatterbuddy at the end don’t know how to use a voicechat!!!!
      You could clearly hear (through the feedback) multiple repeats of everything you were saying- because both of you were on hands free and set up a bloody feedback loop!!!!

      (I don’t know if I should educate him, but then he probably wouldn’t see it here anyway)

      But if either one of you had either used a earpiece or headphones (or even turned off the handsfree and picked up the bloody phone) it would have stopped the ‘government interference’ immediately

      If brains were dynamite, it wouldn’t disturb a hair on his head if it went off…..

      Liked by 4 people

    • The more I hear Devine droning on about quantum language, the more it sounds like he’s trying to ‘invent’ pidgin English. Andy – it’s been done before!

      Liked by 3 people

    • When he brings on that woman for a chat near the end and the sound quality is really crap, he immediately blames it on “them messing with us to keep us quiet”. Yup.

      Liked by 2 people

      • LOL
        (or maybe they were both in hands free???)
        Nah, couldn’t be as simple as they just don’t know how to use their gear could it???
        Could it??????

        Liked by 2 people

    • Also, well done getting to the bottom of that. I think Jon Wedger needs to explain what exactly he is whistleblowing about. He could have been told to bog off so he didn’t interfere ina ongoing investigation, and he wasn’t trusted enough to be told there was an investigation.

      I would also echo what was said upthread, where exactly did he see the magistrate’s name on the disposal history? He could explain this and ex-police would know if what he is saying has any credibility.

      I think though, he is BUSTED.

      Liked by 2 people

  10. Pingback: Wedger’s ‘Foxy’ story: Not the cover-up he claims – The Real Fresh Start Foundation

  11. Back in October 2018 Rodney Hearth interviewed Jon in Marbella. There are two videos. In the first when Jon gets conspiratorial Mr Hearth questions him a bit about some of his statements. (See 15:25) It was a good start and I’d hoped for some more probing questions but I’m afraid to say I was left disappointed. Anyway here’s the dialogue:

    Jon: ‘We can’t have stay at home parents anymore and I believe that’s deliberate.’

    Mr Hearth: ‘Deliberate?’

    Jon: ‘Yeah. I believe they’re deliberately doing it to stop the kids having a nice sort of functioning home life you know…having the mother… ‘

    Mr Hearth: ‘Who?’

    Jon: ‘I would say governmental level you know.’

    Mr Hearth: ‘Why would they do that?’

    Jon: ‘I think they would do that to bring a break down in society.’

    Mr Hearth: ‘To the advantage of whom?’

    Jon: ‘I really don’t know. Who benefits from dysfunctionality
    Why would anyone want to cover up child abuse?
    Why would anyone want, you know, disaffection in society? You know it’s incredibly nefarious…erm…and I’ll just get back to….there’s something I want to mention which is being mentioned to me consistently by victims of abuse and it’s something that’s being really neglected and deliberately ignored by the mainstream media and I’m actually being steered away from mentioning it and that is SRA, Satanic Ritual Abuse, and this is an elephant that is in the living room and I think this elephant is so big there’s no room left in the living room if that makes sense.’

    So the Satanists did it? I was left none the wiser.

    In video Part 2 he mentions mortgage fraud:

    Jon: ‘The other thing is, with mortgage fraud, Police Officers like to live in good areas. Now I understand that. If you live like I’ve done in a bad area, I lived on a big housing estate, you get trouble, you do. People hate you and they will deliberately come and cause trouble for you and I’ve had that. I lived in a very bad area and you get called pig this and pig that….you know it weren’t a nice environment and that then goes on to your children. And its ‘cos I had no money and I had to live there you know. If I had a choice would I live there? No I would not and I’m not denigrating anyone that lives on an estate, I’m not, but I didn’t want to live there.

    Right so officers hyper inflate their earnings. Now if a coppers earning 35,000 pounds and that’s with overtime the next year he goes down to 34 he could well be looked as being fraudulent in his assessment of his earnings and this is what they’ve done to Tommy Robinson and this is what they did to my friend and my friend had to stand trial at Crown Court.’

    I struggle to understand how you can compare fraudulently inflating your income by a thousand pounds to what Tommy Robinson did, especially as Tommy’s offence involved several other defendants and a false document.

    I don’t know who Jon’s friend is who stood trial at Crown Court but is it this man?:

    The above sounds like a particularly awful case which might have involved some institutional targeting but it doesn’t look like anything to do with ‘hyper inflating’ one’s income and involves a copper renting out a property without telling the mortgage provider.

    Does Jon know what he’s saying and playing to the conspiracy peanut gallery or is he just befuddled? I have no idea.

    Liked by 2 people

    • So, he went to the Scilly Isles, with his children, for his fundraising walk. He also went to Marbella.

      He can’t afford to live anywhere other than a council estate. Single income. Probably family tax credits or universal credit now. Has he got another job? With an industrial tribunal case on the horizon saying the job made him sick? On disability benefits?

      People I know getting by, they clip coupons from the newspaper and go on £20 holidays in ancient static caravans,

      Has anyone ever costed a holiday on one of the Scilly Isles? From London? Fuel, helicopter or ferry, camping (cheap-ish but did he stay in a tent?) food in the Co-op is more expensive. If he stayed in a B&B or self-catering, well that ranges from reasonable but booked up twelve months in advance, through to pricey, right the way to bedding down in a listed building owned by the Duke of Cornwall.

      Also, Marbella? Mar-fucking-bella? When you are strapped for cash?

      Liking the casual misogyny. Working class women, well, I can’t remember reading about a time when a big chunk of them didn’t work. And, sorry, but policing is classed as a skilled manual trade as a constable. Back in the days when I had to use occupational classifications cross referenced with qualification levels. Policing, level 3. Plumber, level 3.

      Liked by 3 people

      • I got the impression Mr Hearth had put him up in Marbella although I`m not sure. One of the perks of getting your name out there I suppose. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

    • Devine’s just said something about how the Greek police have tried to serve him court papers but he’s refused to take them (because it said “Devine, Andrew” on the envelope, not “Andrew Devine” – sigh). I wonder what that’s about 🤔

      By the way, he’s twice today confirmed that he’s coming to the UK.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Funny you say that, as i just watched an MKD video where Devine said he has two beautiful men to help people out with their quantum language. Julian must be one of Andy’s beautiful men.

        Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: Wedger’s lies: ‘Foxy’ appealed sentence, was denied | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  13. Devine has just gone over the line now in his vid! Talking about child abuse & giving a graphic description. Please report his live for child abuse. It’s near the end of the video, I didn’t get a time stamp sorry, switched it off & reported it immediately. He is one disgusting person.


  14. Pingback: ‘Jon Wedger Foundation’ isn’t a foundation…or a charity | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

  15. Brilliant Report, very well informed now about the Wedger, has that Tin Foil Hat Harvey seen this, think ill Tweet him with it just to make sure he sees, the So called Hoaxtead Trolls (pmsl) have actually exposed Jon Wedger whilst He is running around with Hobbiest Kiddy Murder lover Armchair D and eddie Edgar and Mo abes mate,, PS I also think Balloney past the Battern to Wedger

    Liked by 1 person

  16. ICYMI Private Eye issue 1492 lays into Anna Brees and Wedger regarding the Mike Tarraga book. Brees is the publisher of that book and that fully explains, in my opinion, the need for Tarraga to accuse Heath. The previous edition of the same book made no mention of Heath. Draw your own conclusions.


Comments are closed.