Brees retaliates against Private Eye journalist

Anna Brees is still smarting from her recent turn of stardom in Private Eye.

A few days ago we commented on the Eye‘s story that Brees, a former journalist turned promotional flack for ex-DC Jon Wedger, had confessed to adding a salacious story about Edward Heath to the Brees Media re-issue of Mike Tarraga’s memoir, Meat Rack Boy. Tarraga had self-published the first version, A Successful Failure: The life of an uncouth lout, a few years ago, but had inserted the Heath story in the second version with Brees’ encouragement.

When Rosie Waterhouse, author of the two Eye stories, questioned Brees further about the discrepancies between the two books, Brees refused to comment further.

Now, as a journalist, one would think that Brees would have been well aware that when one refuses to answer a journalist’s question, one’s refusal is likely to become the story. Apparently Brees was away the day they taught that.

Wind him up and watch him go!

Her response to Waterhouse’s second article was to record a video with a now-enraged Tarraga, who let fly with a string of expletives about Waterhouse. She published this on Wedger’s YouTube channel:

A very wound-up Tarraga lets fly with a string of expletives about Waterhouse, while Brees smiles encouragingly:

This is particularly aimed toward Rosie-Fucking-Waterhouse: get your facts sodding well right, have the decency to answer me, come and face me, have a look at my record, or if you haven’t got the arse to do that my lovey, I now call you a fucking liar, what you have said about me. Now take me to court. …

I will prove you a fucking liar, and I will have you in the gutter, my lovey.

Brees interjects, noting that Waterhouse had contacted her and had asked a number of questions about inconsistencies between the two books: “She did pick up quite a few things like dates.” She added that Waterhouse had found information on a “private forum” which appeared to contradict some of the timing in Tarraga’s story.

The “private forum” turns out to have been a discussion forum on a genealogy site:

Tarraga says that Waterhouse took this post out of context, and that he had only been describing the first loving care he had received as a child. However, this still doesn’t explain the date inconsistency.

Alleged Heath abuse ‘of no sodding consequence’

In this curious exchange, Tarraga describes Heath’s alleged sexual abuse, but then dismisses it as “of no sodding consequence whatsoever”; and Brees states that inserting the Heath story into the second version of the book had been her idea:

Brees: …What I have to say is very important: that first book that you wrote, we spoke to you and we found out about this incident with the former prime minister, Edward Heath…

Tarraga: Edward Heath was of no consequence. I didn’t know who the bloody hell he was. I wasn’t into politics, I didn’t understand politics…. [description of child sexual abuse omitted] It was of no sodding consequence whatsoever. I probably got half a crown and was allowed to smoke on the arse end of the bloody boat. And that was it. And it wasn’t a huge great big boat, you know, it wasn’t a gin palace, it was a little yacht-y sailing boat. …

Brees: the thing is, Michael, I picked up on the Edward Heath incident. It wasn’t a major incident. You were horrifically sexually abused and raped as a child. And in the grand scheme of things, that’s what journalists do, they realise what the headline is, the headline that you didn’t pick up on, we put it in the book, and every single penny of that book is going towards training people to get that message out on new media platforms.

So basically, Brees seems to be saying that adding in the questionable Heath narrative to boost sales is “what journalists do”. All righty then. [Ahem. Journalists don’t write headlines; editors do that.—Ed.]

Oh, but it’s all okay, because “every single penny of that book is going towards training people to get that message out on new media platforms”. Oddly, this varies from Brees’ last proclamation about what will happen to the proceeds of the book: in a tweet dated 3 April, she said, “[Tarraga’s] book is making £350 a month which will pay for a big event in June for survivors to tell their stories”.

Wedger, meanwhile, seems to have other plans for the Meat Rack money: on his Jon Wedger Foundation blog, he proclaimed, “All profits [from Tarraga’s book] go to the campaign to expose an establishment cover up of child abuse”.

‘Go and troll Rosie!’

Most concerning in the Brees/Tarraga video, however, is that Brees seems quite happy to encourage Tarraga incite viewers to harass Waterhouse. He says,

If trolling makes you happy—if you get your rocks off trolling someone, get your rocks off. But not over me. You know? Do it somewhere else. Look at a real half-wit, like—go and troll Rosie! Cause I’m sure she’d love it!”

Brees’ smirk during this tirade tells a story:

“Go get ‘er, Mike!”

Perhaps Brees failed to explain to Tarraga that it is the job of real journalists to ask uncomfortable questions about inconsistencies and discrepancies in people’s stories; maybe she skimmed over the fact that Waterhouse was not questioning Tarraga’s abuse whilst in the care system, but was curious about the sudden appearance of the Heath story in a memoir which already detailed horrific child sexual abuse.

As a “professional journalist”, you would think she’d know better.

82 thoughts on “Brees retaliates against Private Eye journalist

  1. The former journalist description is pretty apt. A basic failure to verify a single source is sloppy, if not seriously derelict in integrity.

    Ahem. Journalists don’t write headlines; editors do that.—Ed.
    Tell me about it! I ghost wrote an article for The Independent a few years ago and they wrote a clickbait headline for it with the opposite meaning of the piece. This resulted in a deluge of offensive tweets to the person credited with the by-line. It was then that I twigged that most people don’t actually read articles before reacting. Even though they amended the headline online it was too late. What is funny is that with the headline corrected, reading the comments now leaves the keyboard warriors looking seriously unhinged!

    Liked by 2 people

    • A newspaper article where the headline says the opposite of the article ?? That’s a new one, never seen that before.

      Only on nearly every article I read.

      Other lesson I taught myself – in the local newspaper when I was growing up, in every story that I knew what had actually happened, at least 2 major errors of fact were always present. Every. Single. Time. I extrapolate that to every story I read. Lorryload of salt, always. No idea why I’ve grown up so cynical, sorry, with well-honed critical faculties.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, we saw a vivid example of this at Sabine McNeill’s trial, in which a Daily Mail reporter arrived on the second or third day, sat in on the trial for a couple of hours, and then went away and wrote a story in which it was clear that he thought that the lies Sabine had spread had been her own, rather than Abe and Ella’s. A rather fundamental error, but just about par for the course, i’m afraid.


        • I find that there are a lot more better-written articles on all types of subjects in the blogosphere. Newspaper reporters need to up their game.


    • For a website that claims to expose grand hoaxes, you are suspiciously trigger-happy when it comes to presenting spurious “facts” as seemingly indisputable. It is not true that journalists do not come up with their own headlines. Journalists often write (or pitch) the bylines that end up being published. To claim that this does not happen – or even that it is unusual practise – is dishonest and, fundamentally, this dishonesty challenges your claim to integrity, truth and reason. You seem to spend a lot of time & energy on “exposing hoaxers”, – how are people meant to believe you when you tell them something that is basically a generalization about editorial practise, that simply isn’t true?

      Have you got an authoritative, regulatory source that backs up the claim that editors (even for the “most part”) are solely responsible for naming the headlines of articles by journalists? It is true that editors may want to change a headline or may even pitch the headline to a journalist themselves ()before the article is even written) but it is fundamentally dishonest to suggest that headlines are exclusively dictated by editors and that it is not common for journalists to write or suggest their own headlines (of which the editor may agree or disagree with, for many reasons, such as simple editorial policy which obviously varies between different publications!).

      It is difficult to take seriously a source that claims to be rational when such a minor – yet crucial – generalization is treated as a fact. It makes the case for a fact-checking mission on the body of work contained within this website. Any site dedicated to exposing hoaxes becomes fundamentally flawed in its own aims by such bold generalizations and I can’t understand why this was even included in the article. Surely there are many readers (or potential readers) that are published journalists – why make such a silly statement? It is careless at best.


      • Are you disagreeing with An Owl Called Sage or the Hoaxtead Research blog? For someone who’s so keen to express their journalistic expertise, I’m surprised that you think the views of any given commenter represent those of the blog’s editorial team.


        • I am disagreeing with the claim that editors are exclusively in charge of headlines. It isn’t true and I don’t understand why they put that claim in this article – it undermines their whole criticism of Anna Brees which is based on questions regarding her legitimacy as a journalist. Its pretty shoddy to make a generalization about bylines which is untrue whilst questioning the integrity of another writer (be they legitimate or otherwise, and this is something I am now trying to figure out, RE Brees).

          This isn’t about a commentator “representing” the editorial team. Rather, it is about the editorial team allowing made-up facts to feature within articles without any backing. Why even do it? It is detrimental to the modus operandi of a website that is dedicated to exposing hoaxes – surely, they should be strongly against featuring facts-without-basis being featured in an article that is questioning the legitimacy of a commentator.

          “To be honest, i haven’t even looked at your comment.” – Not sure if your comment about questioning this site’s relationship between editors and commentators was directed to me. In any case, you should actually read what is said before commenting. In fact, I don’t understand why one would reply to any comment without reading it beforehand, so the point stands regardless of who you were responding to.


      • Not that I’m disagreeing with you, Sage. To be honest, I haven’t even looked at your comment. I just wanted to make that point about someone naïvely assuming that the views of a commenter automatically represent those of the blog as a whole and going off on one as a result, thereby totally undermining the very point they were tyring to make about who’s responsible for editorial content on any given publication.


        • Basically, this is the part of the article that made me question its legitimacy: “[Ahem. Journalists don’t write headlines; editors do that.—Ed.]”.

          So, it suggests that an editor inserted that comment during the editorial process. That isn’t a fundamental truth to the world of journalism and it undermines the integrity of this article, which is – at heart – questioning the integrity and legitimacy of another “journalist” (whether they are a good one or not is still up for debate. In this instance, this website has undermined its own critical stance via a seemingly throwaway comment that didn’t even need to be there in the first place).


        • “You should actually read what is said before commenting. In fact, I don’t understand why one would reply to any comment without reading it”

          Er… no. Because as I clearly stated, my point had nothing whatsoever to do with the content of Sage’s comment.


          • I have to admit I did snigger when she posted that. Classic “look over there not here”!

            It doesn’t alter the fact that the editor (or sub-editor) does in principle decide on the headline and lead and in my experience that includes The Guardian, The Independent and ITV Telext! That they may chose to use my pitch or copy for the title or lead is moot. All official contracts I’ve had have granted express permission for them to “amend, cut or alter” my copy.

            I’ve not written for a Murdoch paper so it is probably fair to say that they may have very different rules to the rest of the civilised world of journalism 🤣

            Liked by 1 person

        • RMLLS, does it really matter? With all due respect, it seems a rather petty point.

          PS: love to your long lost “brother”. Seems he’s the one you should be complaining to, as he has much to answer for in his long and chequered career 😆

          Liked by 1 person

  2. The important words here are “all profits”.
    Profit could be one penny out of £100.

    These people absolutely disgust me. They are leaches who use child abuse to indulge in their fantasies and self-promotion.
    Their claims that they need money to “expose cover-ups” is an excuse to play on the public’s genuine concerns and provide donations for them to basically promote themselves, almost as if it’s a hobby.
    The fact Jon Wedger & Anna Brees claim they have a “charity” and “foundation” is surely verging on illegality.

    There is the current IICSA inquiry costing £tens of millions which is finding very little evidence of a “cover-up” because it’s finding virtually no evidence of anything to cover-up. Just more repeated claims with zilch evidence.
    IICSA even spent £1M on advertising alone so “witnesses” could come and make these unproved claims that they have made on the internet for ages.
    And of course if IICSA does not make the findings that this mob demand, they’ll claim it was a cover-up.
    There is no winning with these fanatics.

    We have over 4 million British children who it’s said are living in poverty (along with similar numbers of adults).
    The cost of the endless created dramas and inquiries, internet driven with the aid of newspapers (who readily turn on sixpence and go the opposite way when it suits) is running into the $100Ms. This money could go a long way to help the poor now that we actually have 100s of food banks for the needy.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Got bored with The Economist. Took out a sub to The Eye instead. Cheaper. Much better journalism – on all the topics covered by The Economist, to boot.

      Best cover ever – Issue 182

      Liked by 2 people

      • My understanding it was Auberon Waugh’s work in “Private Eye” plus standing as a candidate in “The Dog Lovers’ Party” (although he lost his deposit) that saw off the late Jeremy Thorpe (after the events referred to in “A Very English Scandal” – the programme on TV last year) from politics. And the “Oldie” (run then by an ex-“Private Eye” person) first printed the Jimmy Savile abuse allegations (although I have read here that some people think the reports of abuse in that quarter may have been exaggerated – though not necessarily by “Private Eye”). It’s all very well for people like Ms Brees to criticise mainstream media because they don’t use her leads but as already stated upthread they need PROOF. Where someone accused falsely might ignore YouTubers’ false allegations because the YouTubers don’t have sufficient funds (and also it would have to be a “person/persons unknown” case [John Doe “over the Pond”]) a person accused will know that newspapers or TV companies will have a certain amount of money and it may be worthwhile to sue them.

        My younger self didn’t hate Jeremy Thorpe and I was disappointed to learn he had possibly conspired in an attempted murder plot. I did feel sorry for the dog though.

        And I like the “Private Eye” Separated at Birth feature.

        Liked by 1 person

        • For clarity, I have sometimes wondered why some of the YouTube inhabitants of the Looniverse haven’t been sued for things they have asserted, I did hear something to the effect that it might not be worth a celebrity (or a less well known person) to bring a defamation case because the YouTuber might not have enough assets to make it worthwhile suing them.

          Liked by 1 person

          • Actions for defamation are very difficult to do by yourself, expensive to do with a lawyer, and only worth doing against people like newspapers who have insurance to pay the damages and your costs. And litigation doesn’t usually go the way you want even if you win. The risk is that a lot of mud is flung, which sticks even if the court doesn’t accept it.

            One of the few successful actions against social mediaists was Lord McAlpine which was successful because he could afford to bring the actions without needing damages and costs to recompense him, there was one simple allegation, it was false and scandalous, and his case was easily proved. That conjunction of factors will seldom appear.

            Liked by 1 person

    • I would refer this dishonourable lady to how Private Eye usually respond to folk who try threatening them, to research the precedent set in the case of Arkell v Pressdram.

      She’s a journalist? Really?

      Her video reminded me of this apposite doggerel;

      You cannot hope to
      Bribe or twist
      Thank God!
      The British journalist

      But seeing what
      Unbribed she’ll do
      There’s really no
      Occasion to.

      Liked by 2 people

    • @Lucca, you’re thinking of Gemma O’Doherty I assume? I think she was a legitimate and good investigative journalist at one point but she seems to have gone loopy recently.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I was thinking of APD but yes, I agree about Gemma O’Doherty, she has completely destroyed her credibility & reputation. I try to think back to when or why she went rogue but can’t fathom it. I used to look at her stuff about Mary Boyle & was delighted that there seemed to be a breakthrough but quickly became disenchanted & disgusted with her claims.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. It sickens me to think they are using charity to raise money for themselves, they do realise it’s still a crime smh. I hope that it was just a mistake.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. Brees, Sharyl Attkisson, Gemma O’Doherty, Maryanne Demasi. I am seeing a pattern here. A particular personality type is drawn to journalism (of the high-profile investigative crusading kind) as an outlet for their histrionic self-regard and self-certainty. Those traits also make them Dunning-Kruger effect case-studies so they fuck up, self-destruct spectacularly, and take up new careers as Conspiracy Whistle-Blowers.

    Liked by 2 people

    • She sounds like another Sonia Poulton to me, the if I shout loudest, I`ll know I`m right, doesn`t matter if it`s bull shit kind.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Funny you should say that FG as it was the first name that came to my mind when reading Smuts comment


  5. Indulge me briefly.
    I simple loved this Mexican entertainer and I’m a tad upset to find he died 3 years ago at the relative young age of 66.
    Juan Gabriel was one of the biggest South American stars but from the most humble beginnings. During his career it’s said he sold over 200 million records.
    A friend in the Spanish music industry took me to a Gabriel concert in 1981 in Mexico City.
    I know a lot about Juan’s life as I had the privilege of meeting him backstage after the show and later my pal filled me in about his life.He was a close friend.
    I was blown away by the the lavishness of the show and of course, Juan Gabriel’s superb voice (and he wrote100s of songs)

    But every show he did, every SINGLE PENNY raised- and bear in mind he was a star of such proportions that we in the West often overlook how famous non-English speaking entertainers can be – went to children’s charities. Despite rumours of Juan’s private life he fathered at least 6 children who he adored and they say even more who The ghastly promoters of Hampstead etc accuse very famous people of either of being transgender (a new one to me) or the result of some Satanic Rothschild Freemason experiment and it’s just so sick.

    Juan’s experiences as a child made him determined he would help other Mexican children.
    His will apparently, after ensuring his kids were well looked after, left a fortune to the less fortunate.
    It’s yet another reason I cannot stand The Mob (™) and they way they seek money for themselves using children.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. I have to suggest that some lateral thinking is required here and really have only questions. What drove a once reasonably-successful presenter along this road? Was Anna Brees ever really a journalist as such (genuine question, I don’t know) or simply a presenter who got ideas above her continuity-announcements? There is a difference – many presenters emerge from drama or production courses. They can do further training to become journalists and may well have done some elementary units in the subject, but they’re not that. Likewise, many excellent journalist need further training to become competent presenters. How did she come to so alienate herself from what is a reasonably healthy industry? There is all sorts of work available to those that can research, write and produce material especially if they can be the face in front of the camera. “She complains on Twitter that the BBC aren’t interested in her ‘Unbelievable Evidence’. ” Could that possibly be because it doesn’t stand up and just _isn’t_ believable? She puzzles me. She’s not unpresentable, has a reasonably good understanding of presentation techniques and has some worthwhile experience in front of the camera etc. Yet she insists on chasing this silly race to the bottom “Mobile Video for Social Media” nonsense, in a professional world where that has now had its day. She could be coining it in without this rubbish, if she hadn’t made herself untouchable. As others point out, she is far from unique and there is a bit of a bunny-boiler list out there. What’s the story here? What takes people to that cliff edge?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Would you make her a better offer and employ her at media rates ? I suspect not. She’s earning money the only way she knows how. I read she dropped out of a psychotherapist course before pulling her recent stunts, for that we can be grateful. She’s unemployable outside of dismal office work, no media professionals want loose canons like her pissing about. Don’t know what happened to send her like this but she’s obviously unfit for any kind of responsible position. Her recent hissy fit is the door slamming on any mainstream career, I just laugh at the dopey mare like some real life Alan Partridge.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Nobody will employ her, partly because of her antics with this so-called Social Video thing of hers, which in itself has been a pitiful, abject failure. Her blatant disrespect for technical crew and production staff has offended and alienated people. Additionally, there are legal and management issues surrounding the production of video material (on a professional basis) that she seems astonishingly unaware of, or perhaps doesn’t give a damn about. Actually, I am of the opinion that what the Eye has highlighted here rather highlights that ignorance/stupidity/contempt. She is also a danger to the client base (as all these types are) because, through ignorance and lack of proper process, she can cause people to put themselves at risk of litigation.

        Alan Partridge? I picture her more as a cartoon character sitting out on a limb, through which she is working a handsaw! Not only are loose cannons unwelcome, but so are those that undermine the very industry they seek to be a part of.

        Mainstream or otherwise, her conduct makes her too much of a risk to have around, I agree. But the very valid question remains of what causes people with an apparently legitimate background to go down this sort of route? There is work out there – aren’t most people who work in TV freelancers? How does everyone else manage? As for a ‘psychotherapy course’ – assuming we’re not talking about some halfbaked fruitloop psychobabble thing; does that not require a background as a clinician of some sort or a psychology degree? Has she such a thing?

        What did she do ‘after TV’?

        Retraining and finding new direction after redundancy is always a positive thing of course. The trouble with people like Anna is that they seem to think they can put on a professional roll as easily as one might change tee-shirts! I don’t know if it’s pity or scorn she deserves. – Is she unwell perhaps?


    • Playing the Devil’s Advocate here but I imagine that she has taken on this issue because she truly believes it. You’ve basically pointed out that she could be alright if she got a job presenting for one of the traditional media companies so, why would she bother spending her time analyzing and reporting on such an obscure and divisive subject? I’ve seen a few of her videos and they never seem to manage beyond a few thousand views on youtube – this undermines the notion that she is doing this for attention. I seriously doubt that she is making money that is comparative to that made by a BBC or ITV presenter, although I could very well be wrong on that of course. Perhaps everything she says is based on a bunch of different lies relating to a blanket-subject that she is interested in, either out of legitimate concern or via the pursuit of some kind of ulterior motive (child sexual abuse seems to be the focal point of her work) but, in the hypothetical case of the latter, I just cannot see what gain could be made from engaging quite obsessively in reporting on such an obscure, niece subject. I am not anywhere near certain of the validity of her claims, nor her level of skill (and integrity, honesty etc.) as a journalist, but I do keep an open-mind, and this approach to understanding information is presented makes me question why exactly a person would dedicate so much time and effort in working around a topic when, for the most part, the person seems to be disbelieved at the very least (and even mocked). Why do it? Religious fundamentalism? Perhaps. Financial gain? Perhaps. Notoriety? Perhaps. Disinformation agent? Could be. I don’t know. All I do know is that the person in question seems to spend a lot of time on an issue that doesn’t seem like one to pick if one’s ultimate aim is some kind of profit/gain. Seems to me that the correct move for somebody like that would be a job presenting for an established media company that would pay a decent salary and could fulfil whatever potential narcissistic, attention-based needs that may motivate the individual – why would a person with the skills and abilities necessary to succeed in the established/traditional media industry choose instead to spend all of their time and effort making youtube videos relating to quite an obscure subject that is largely ignored, ridiculed and definitely not a sound financial investment?

      I’m not saying that Brees is right or wrong, for I cannot know, nor can I discount the allegations upon which she has built this body of work. What I have difficulty with is understanding why a clearly skilled and well-trained television presenter would actively put themselves in such a position of obscurity, ridicule and probably a precarious financial position. Why? Is it worth it? Is this a racket that pays well? Is it “fun”? Does it help a person “get revenge” on others (e.g. did Brees have a beef with the Beeb and, out of spite, turned to putting out videos on the subject of CSA to a seemingly very small audience)? I am trying to understand what would motivate a person to do this if they were not personally convinced that the issue they work on is worthy of attention/time/effort. I do not personally think that a person would put themselves out there in such a way, on such a topic, if the person DIDN’T actually believe that what they were doing had some truth to it. My two-cents.


  7. Interesting choice of tactic for the alleged journalist to use a child abuse victim as a human shield from her detractors.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Can I urge some other considerations in this: Ms Waterhouse is only doing her job with the questions that she rightfully posed to Tarraga’s elected representative Brees. Brees and Wedger put Tarraga’s claims further into the public domain, they therefore actively encouraged the questioning of his claims. Especially when there is some clear evidence that some of them contradict themselves based on material Tarraga himself has posted.

    The answer to this isn’t to attack Waterhouse or Private Eye for asking the questions but for Brees to answer them. Instead of doing so however Brees, Tarraga and Jon Wedger in particular have chosen, I believe, to commit several criminal acts by posting that video, inciting criminal acts within the video itself and potentially trying to scare/intimidate a female journalist with decades of experience. The fact they have chosen that route clearly also demonstrates to me, at least, that there is an issue over Tarraga’s claims otherwise why do act the way they have?

    I would hope that Ms Waterhouse has taken the appropriate steps to ensure her personal safety as a result of this video and indeed another which Wedger has since posted on his Youtube channel (little clue Jon, if it’s your channel you’re responsible for it’s output) clearly designed to intimidate Ms Waterhouse further. I find Wedger’s behaviour, in particular, reprehensible. He’s an ex-copper who is clearly very comfortable potentially breaking the law.

    Ever the helpful chap, Wedger, Brees and Tarraga may wish to refresh their quite obviously flawed “recollection” of the wording of several pieces of legislation and/or refamiliarise themselves before posting such material in future:

    Malicious Communications Act 1998/Communications Act 2003,
    Video Recordings Act 1984/2010,
    Prevention of Harassment Act 1997,
    Human Rights Act 1998.

    All of which could be used to potentially charge all three for the offences committed within the video and the transmission of it electronically on Youtube.

    Ironically Brees is attempting to silence a member of the press but screaming that Brees herself is not being listened to. Her smirking at Tarraga’s threatening behaviour within the video is disturbing to say the least. The silencing tactic is one which is well established with the mob of nutcases and it’s exceptionally oppressive and quite frankly dangerous.

    I’d also ask Hoaxtead to remove the link to the video from this article for those reasons regarding it’s potential criminality. The video clearly includes threats to Ms Waterhouse and also incitement to others to commit criminal acts.

    As such it should be reported to Youtube, not promoted further and I believe is also a matter which the police need to assess. As those reposting it may also be committing criminal acts.

    At the end of the day, Ms Waterhouse is simply a journalist asking pertinent questions, she should be applauded for doing so not threatened or put in danger from further online abuse.

    Liked by 1 person

      • I agree with most of what you say, with the exception that we ought to remove the video link. We have lodged complaints with YouTube about it under their “bullying and harassment” policy, but while the video may eventually become evidence in a criminal case, it has not done so, and I believe our readers ought to be able to see and judge for themselves exactly how credible Brees’ and Tarragas’ arguments are. Of course, should the situation change, we will immediately reconsider this decision.


  9. Basically she’s reporting ‘events’ she had someone insert into a 2nd edition of their autobiography that are ‘alleged’ to have occurred over 50 years ago after a high profile disaster of an investigation is currently being debunked as a gang of scamming fantasist Walter Mitty gobshites. That’s not journalism, that’s gossip on an industrial scale. The woman’s a parasite and nothing more. I hope she gets taken to task over her attempts to blacken real journalist’s hard earned integrity.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Thing with Brees is if she was on the receiving end of what she incited Tarraga to say she’d be screaming “victim” at the top of her voice. She’s basically attacking another woman as well or asking for it to happen. So much for helping people out. As someone else remarked earlier in another comment on this post, about Sonia Poulton, there are distinct similarities in their methods of incitement of people to act in criminal ways then appearing to want to absolve themselves of any blame for what they created. Agent provocateurs. Same goes for the sadact that is Mark Watts. All bring shame on the journalistic profession.

      I agree that Brees (and associates) needs taking to task by the authorities for what she’s done but she’ll likely turn on the sob story and claim “it wasn’t me gov”. That too is a distinct pattern.

      Been there, seen that, bought the T shirt, the soundtrack and the poster – it needs a robust response and a firm hand to stop this sort of crap though before someone gets violently assaulted based on the sort of incitement in the video.

      All Brees had to do was answer the questions asked of her by Private Eye as Tarraga’s representative or directly give Tarraga the chance to answer the questions posed to Brees. The attack methods make her and him (together with the moronic transmission by Wedger of such) look incredibly stupid and as though they do have something to hide. They seem to have overlooked that or maybe it was the intention to create a drama with more mud flying around.

      I suspect this is more to do with Tarraga wanting more than the alleged £10k he’s already received from Lambeth Council as a “harm’s way payment” and little to do with the actual questions tbh. Wedger and Brees are only probably assisting because they want a cut of any increased compo and have possibly already received a wedge(!) out of the first payment. Wedger has openly referred to such payments on his Twitter timeline.

      Problem for Tarraga is that the exposure and questioning by Private Eye has raised issues not only about that additional claim but the original one too. Lambeth Council’s lawyers may be pouring over such.

      Which may of course then explain all the anger for them all being possibly rumbled. Still doesn’t excuse what they’ve done though.


      • If she was on the receiving end of what she’.s doing to Heath – Having a dead relative/friend of hers accused of child molestation as part of a money making exercise – she’d probably take exception. She’s a liar, she know’s she’s a liar and she can fucking well sue me if she doesn’t like that. Her and Dunn are two peas in a pod with their emotional blackmail plots that see them funded as slandering hacks.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Absolutely. The fact that she and Wedger want to attack Waterhouse and now her sometime partner in authorship David Rose is very stupid. Both Wedger and Brees seem to think that their intimidatory tactics are going to make Waterhouse and Rose stop asking questions. It’s quite clear that it’s not going to work. On the day that there is a whole load of crap re the arrest of Julian Assange, the oppression of journalists simply doing their jobs in this country needs to also be addressed.

          If Brees and her mate Mark Watts had their way no-one else other than them would be able to report on CSA matters or question their (and their sources) bullshit.

          Wedger and Brees inciting attacks on journalists therefore on the same day as Assange’s (final) arrest makes me giggle in one way and angry in another. If there is a jeopardy to freedom of the press regarding Assange’s possible extradition then the same applies to how Rose and Waterhouse are being treated.

          I suspect that Private Eye will especially have an Eye(!) on Watts too given his clear attempts to implicate the Eye with PIE whilst he hypocritically claims that others are being “smeared”. Gutter journalism doesn’t come much clearer than what Brees and Watts have been up to. Watts may find he has to spend some time defending a libel case as well as regularly signing on down the Job Centre and also combine that with a likely appearance in forthcoming events (in May 2019) in Newcastle Crown Court concerning his mate Beech.

          Rumour has it that Northumbria Police’s Operation Ruby still have eyes on the other players around Beech. Shame.


          • p.s. hate to be the bearer of sad news but it would appear as though Robert Green, Green of Hollie Grieg hoax infamy has passed away according to Brian Gerrish. Allegedly the cause of death was cancer.


    • He’s had to switch Facebook profiles again, hehe. He’s just been given a 30-day ban for sharing a Praterson post calling for various politicians to be hanged. Kudos to the person who reported him 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

        • Wanoa is completely fecked in the head, to the point that other people in NZ working the same general “Confederated-Chiefs United Tribes” scam (selling fake citizenship and passports, etc.) don’t want to know him anymore. He’s discrediting the whole grifting industry.
          But part of his derangement is his conviction that the rest of the world owes him all the money. If a lot of that money happens to come from Devine, Wanoa is not going to tell him “No, mate, you keep it, you need it more than I do”. In what passes for Wanoa’s mind, it was always his money all along.

          Liked by 1 person

          • I’ve noticed Devine getting a bit miffed with him a few times recently too. He was moaning about Wanoa not having an essential document ready for their attempted coup yesterday and also couldn’t wait to get rid of him on yesterday’s feed, lol. He also got pretty wound up with Wanoa’s inability to work out what time it was in New Zealand 😆

            Liked by 1 person

      • I reported & got one of his racist shares taken down earlier, also Wanoa’s along with Devine’s Intervention yesterday. He got a three day ban, or so he said.

        Liked by 1 person

        • 30 days. I got 6 of his posts taken down – four for violence and two for hate speech (see my comments on yesterday’s page) 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    • What’s he really about, making all these videos? Is it celebrity? Holding ‘court’ as someone said and dispensing advice and it doesn’t matter whether it’s good or bad so long as he gets some attention?
      There has to be a reason for what he’s doing and I’m not buying that he has the interests of humanity in mind. This is about SELF.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Far from me to rain on his parade, but you raise mass when you raise your frequency.

        It’s almost as though he doesn’t understand the most basic of quantum physics equations 🤓

        Liked by 2 people

  10. I see psycho troll Robert ‘Fabooka’ Matheson’s meltdown has gone into overdrive now. I won’t link the post due to illegal content but here are two snippets for anyone still in any doubt about Fabooka’s mental state…

    Liked by 1 person

    • My God, what a freak Devine is, he thinks cannabis oil is going to take a man back from the awful journey he now has to face, I would not wish it on anyone. It’s like he is on a parallel universe, he can’t fathom how serious the man’s illness is! I don’t think he was ever quite right, his stories from growing up seemed to be all laughable to him, his yuck story yet when someone said about putting them of their food, he thought they were talking about something else, just didn’t get how inappropriate that was. He talked about his mate smashing a juke box with a glass, he laughed as if it was the funniest thing ever. Maybe that’s why he went to prison, because he cannot fathom that actions have consequences. He is the same about his posts being taken down, he wonders why & says he was trying to be good but does the exact same thing again a few days later, shares something that has no place in society & gets another ban.


  11. Pingback: Watts, Wedger and Brees vs Private Eye | Bartholomew's Notes

Comments are closed.