Wedger reacts to IICSA status

Almost as though he anticipated that some people might be less than delighted at his having been granted core participant status at the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse, on Friday ex-DC Jon Wedger and his publicist Anna Brees threw together a Facebook video on the subject.

Standing in a wooded area west of London, Wedger stated,

Now there has been some confusion and obviously some criticism by people saying that I was never a core participant anyway.

Numerous applications have gone in, as I’ve said, and there was an incident earlier on in the year where IICSA themselves actually got a judicial review to narrow the parameters, which my legal team believed was a deliberate attempt to prevent me from giving evidence. And my barrister himself has been very concerned that it’s taken a year for me to actually be sworn in as a core participant and said, “There has been a lot of obstruction around you”.

Now you can only draw an inference as to why that is,

Why yes, we can. We would infer, for example, that at least some people involved with running the Inquiry have a modicum of common sense, and realise that granting core participant status to a person like Wedger is like offering a fox the keys to the henhouse.

As some of our commenters have pointed out, as a core participant he will now have access to unredacted confidential documents ahead of evidence sessions.

During the Westminster strand of the Inquiry, it was announced that material had been leaked to a journalist in advance of the evidence sessions which dealt with it, and that it was suspected that a core participant was responsible. Mark Watts, former editor-in-chief of Exaro News, outed himself as the culprit, and Brian Altman, Counsel to the Inquiry, stated that access arrangements would be examined regarding future strands.

Nevertheless, as commenter ‘Salad’ pointed out,

Even if this review of access to unredacted documentation limits what protected information Wedger has access to, his activities to date in attempting to establish himself as an entrepreneur of tales of abuse, and associated conspiracy theories, must raise concerns about access of any kind which helps him further this revolting career path.

The conspiricism is strong with this one

Quite aside from concerns about confidentiality, we are led to wonder whether the “obstruction” to Wedger’s core participant status had to do with his apparent urge to join dots, sometimes in an unintentionally hilarious way.

For example, in this latest video, Wedger claims,

They brought out a statute law in 2003, under the Criminal Justice Act, which was deliberately brought in, in my opinion, to attack witnesses that come forward that have got a criminal past. And they class them as people of dishonesty.

Now it doesn’t mean that these are people that are giving false testimony, it means that they can now use the judicial process to rubbish people coming forward.

They knew, long ago, the Establishment, the big “They”, knew that there was going to be an influx of victims and survivors coming forward, especially post-Jimmy Savile.

Yes, he really said that.

Apparently the law-makers in 2003 were not only prescient enough to realise that an “influx of victims and survivors” would be flooding the judicial system 15 years later, but they had an inkling not only that Jimmy Savile would die (in 2011) but also that in death he would be reviled as a serial child molester, and that this would cause even more victims and survivors to recall that they, too, had been sexually molested. Whew.

We wonder: do these law-makers ever do fortune telling at parties?

36 thoughts on “Wedger reacts to IICSA status

  1. So Jon Wedger is still in contact with bill Moloney and in support of pie and mash. It shows just how very much involved his been with bill and still is. He must know from Brian Harvey videos on YouTube bill has been coaching survivors like Andrew to make up stories. this in my eyes does not make Jon Wedger a credible witness or someone to be trusted being around and involved with someone like bill when he knows full well the extent of what bills done. Who has also conned survivors out of thousands of pounds he thinks his some kind of god. Makes me wonder if bill has also been prepping him every step of the way from the get go. He calls anyone who disagrees with him in his video trolls and bad and rubbish does that include us survivors who thinks his full of bs I wonder.

    Liked by 2 people

    • He sent me a message on Twitter the other day to say he’s organising a demonstration, to bring everyone together. Just like the old days when they used to bullshit people with all those conspiracy lies. What a waste of time, there is so much going on in the real world as far as the useless CPS and organisations need protesting about, and Wedger doesn’t care as long as he’s called a bloody hero.

      Liked by 2 people

    • I have no problem with Wedger appearing as a witness where his claims can be tested by expert briefs. But giving him special status legitimizes all his claims and even with his response now is he is claiming conspiracy with “Now you can only draw an inference as to why that is” statement.

      I think I am now leaning towards Daniel Janner QC statement that IICSA should be scrapped. The fact nefarious characters from the disgraced Exaro website are involved is just shocking.
      They helped, along with Tom Watson (never trusted him-never will) promote blatant falsehoods that have wasted 1000s of police hours and £Millions.
      I suspect many will find their careers ruined over the endless bungling like the MPs Simon Danzuk and John Mann who are spent forces in politics. Mike Veale has come unstuck and Geoffrey Dickens would have gone the same way except his untimely death left all his hyperventilated, unproved gossip to ferment like a rotten rubbish heap so beloved by Evangelic Christians who are at the heart of this ( Veale, Wedger and a hard core of police officers- forget about the bloody FreeMasons -it’s the alleged Christians to be wary of)

      # I did think after Watt’s pathetic attempt to gain credence by releasing details he should not have that IICSA said that ‘core participants’ would not now see evidence until it has been presented.

      So Wedger is now one of those who are granting clemency to career criminals who can now claim their life of crime was because of some alleged unproven abuse in the past as long as there is a nice wedge of money in compensation to be had on a claim alone.

      I predict when a report is eventually published it will have the opposite effect and inflame the fanatics. No wonder Dame Lowell Goddard fled after a year when she probably realized she would spend years dealing with fanatics and hysterics among genuine witnesses for no good reason except to inflame gutter tabloids just as her resignation was painted as a “sacking” by the Daily Mail- on zilch proof and denied by the Home Office.
      ## I wonder if she’s encountered the King of Comedy Wanoa and ever parked her car at 77 Cook Street Auckland?.

      Liked by 1 person

      • The rules were changed for core participants’ access to confidential documents, but only in that particular strand of the Inquiry. I believe they said they would be looking at future strands with a view to deciding whether rule changes were necessary.

        Like

        • HAVE YOU SEEN THE DOCUMENTS PASSED OVER TO CSA VICTIMS WHO WANT TO SUE LAMBETH COUNCIL AND NSPCC THAT THOSE LIKE MYSELF ARE BEING BLOCKED BECAUSE OF RAYMOND STEVENSON AND LUCIA OF SHIRLEY OAKS SURVIVORS ASSOCIATIONS WHO ARE DENYING THOSE LIKE MYSELF WHO HAS BEEN RAPED, BEATEN BLACK AND BLUE BY A HEADMASTER EMPLOYED BY LAMBETH, IN A BOARDING SCHOOL THAT LAMBETH PAID THE FEES, WHEN I TOLD THE SOCIAL WORKER MRS PAT SALTER, WORKED FOR STREATHAM SOCIAL SERVICES AND MR DONALD JACKSON WHAT MR DEADMAN WAS DOING TO ME, THAT I WAS LOCKED UP FOR TELLING FOR THE TRUTH. YET RAYMOND,LAMBETH AND THE LAW FIRMS THAT ARE BEING PAID IN FULL POINT BLANK REFUSE TO ADDRESSES THIS.

          99.9% OF MY CARE FILE IS REDACTED.

          WHY?

          Like

      • I’M SORRY,BUT WHAT ABOUT THOSE LIKE MYSELF WHO IS PART OF THE SHIRLEY OAKS SURVIVORS THAT THE IICSA HAS BEEN PAID IN THE MILLIONS OF POUNDS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET JUSTICE FOR THE CHILD AND SEX ABUSE WE SUFFERED IN BOTH THE CARE OF LAMBETH COUNCIL AND NSPCC WHO KEPT SENDING MYSELF AND MY TWIN SISTER BACK TO A MOTHER WHO WAS ABUSIVE AND IN AND OUT OF MAUDSLEY MENTAL HOSPITAL THE WHOLE TIME OUR FAMILY WAS KNOWN TO BOTH LAMBETH AND NSPCC , AS FAR BACK AS 1967 TO THEN TAGGING S AS MALADJUSTED 7/8YRS LATER TO PLACING A CARE ORDER ON US TO THEN PLACING ME IN THE CARE OF A MR DEADMEN WHO WAS FOUND ALIVE, AS WAS THE SOCIAL WORKER WHO I TOLD WHAT MR DEADMEN WAS DOING TOME, TO HAVE ME LOCKED UP IN ONE OF LAMBETH’S LOCK UPS AND PLACING MY TWIN SISTER IN THE VERY SAME BOARDING SCHOOL TO FACE THE SAME ABUSE? OVER 4 YRS OF PROVING WHAT I HAVE SAID IS THE TRUTH, TO HAVE LAMBETH COUNCIL PAY A LAW FIRM SWITALSKIS WHO HAS BEEN REPRESENTING ME FOR OVER A YEAR TO TELL ME THAT LAMBETH / SOSA LAW FIRM KENNEDY’S TO TELL MY LAW FIRM THAT I SLD TAKE THE OFFER OF £5000 HARMS WAY PAYMENT, AND THAT IS TO LAMBETH ONLY BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ONLY 4 AND A HALF MTHS OF DESTROYING MY LIFE.

        SINCE MICHEAL MANSFIELDS, MARCIA WILLIS & CO. WHO HAVE NEVER SPOKEN TO A SINGLE VICTIM,AND NOW IMRAN KARN WHO NO DOUBT WILL TOTALLY IGNORE MY EVIDENCE AS ALL HAVE DONE INCLUDING THE NSPCC, AND NOW YOU SAY SCRAPE IT, JUST LIKE THAT!!!!

        AND LAMBETH, NSPCC, SWITALKIS, IICSA, SHIRLEY OAKS SURVIVORS ASSOCIATION, UK GOVERNMENT WANT TO JUST IGNORE THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN VOICING FROM WHEN THERESA MAY STARTED UP THAT BOGUS INQUIRY TO DIVERT GREAT BRITAIN FROM THE REAL CRIMES THAT STILL I HAVE NOT SEEN JUSTICE FOR.

        Like

  2. Cat Scot has gone way over the line with her latest Hampstead video (which she’s plagiarised from the discredited Kris Costa). In it she breaches at least two court orders; she shows the names and photos the two vulnerable children in this case, along with those of of a protected witness (whom she refers to as a child serial killer).

    Liked by 2 people

    • If it’s any consolation, her videos barely make double figures these days – and even those are mostly just us keeping an eye on her.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Interesting that Cat, Fabooka and other trolls (and now Cip Clips, weirdly) keep banging on about how we’re the ones “keeping the Hampstead case in the spotlight” and that it would simply “go away” if we stopped talking about it. The above video suggests otherwise.

      Liked by 1 person

      • But they keep coming out of the woodwork don’t they?. Such as Andy Devine stiring the pot in between efforts to foment a revolution with a crazed New Zealander who can’t even succeed in taking over a council car park.

        Liked by 1 person

        • In one of his videos this week, Devine talked about “the Manga Carta” and “the noble peace prize” and went on at some length about “MSM” being a cure for cancer.

          Liked by 2 people

          • In medscam circles, MSM is ‘Methylsulfonylmethane’, also known as (I am not making this up) “organic sulphur”. I am always reminded of a Spike Milligan yarn, about a geriatric relative who liked to fill her socks with sulphur to keep the rheumatism away, and whose tottering progress around the house and neighbourhood could be traced by the trail of yellow powder.

            Liked by 2 people

          • The Manga Carta is the only thing standing between us and the forces of oppression and tyranny who want to take away our tentacle hentai.

            Liked by 3 people

          • ‘The Manga Carta is the only thing standing between us and the forces of oppression and tyranny who want to take away our tentacle hentai.’

            I had to google Manga and tentacle hentai before I spit my coffee out.

            I can only quote Miss Jean Brodie ‘For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like.’

            Liked by 2 people

      • Tinribs, I’m surprised you said Cips Clips has been up to no good. I haven’t watched that much of his stuff but I thought he was someone who had been down the conspiracy rabbit hole (not necessarily with the Hoaxed conspiracy) and was trying to discourage other people from going into conspiracy land. I thought he was okay.

        Like

          • Cips is having a go at MKD and Sparkle? Seems to be something he’s only just started. I wonder why. “Hoaxtead Research” is a blog though – not a group (well that’s been my understanding though I have only posted here for a few months – and I don’t always post though I may read an article and the comments).

            Like

    • And that is a matter that needs to be investigated by IICSA : the fact that some fanatical blogger can simply break the law almost with impunity and promote these false claims.

      Get enough of them together aided by a gutter tabloid media desperate for sex sensations and you end up with an Inquiry costing a fortune when it cannot really do anything except re-affirm what happened in the past and yet again, today’s children in need are forgotten.

      Has Wedger or Brees or Bloody Baloney (and I haven’t forgotten you Power-Daisy hiding out in Spain pretending you’re drying out) ever expressed the slightest concern for the 4 million British children living in poverty which can lead to all types of abuse, mental. physical and sexual?. No. They’d rather flog some dodgy book written by an ex-hustler whose story changes with the times.
      It’s said that 26,000 children (and how awful that the figure should be rounded to an exact amount) in the Third World will die TODAY. No-one really cares do they- not this lot anyway. Let’s navel gaze about the past and raise donations to go on a bike ride to raise even more donations for what?

      Liked by 1 person

      • I say this as someone who many years ago once campaigned for a judicial enquiry. They are a waste of bloody money. It doesn’t matter what their conclusions are, all they do when they report is retrench people who had formed their views before they started.

        [Note: they are quite distinct from judicial reviews which to have a great part to play in the democratic process.]

        Like

  3. Well, well, well, Jon Wedger proves once again he is a bare-faced liar.

    There was no such judicial review that he claimed happened and if there was there would be a public transcript of it, the IICSA confirmed as such in an email which I revealed in:

    https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/04/29/wedged-pork/

    In fact that reply from the IICSA highlighted 6 specific lies told by Wedger in one specific tweet too.
    Those lies included that he couldn’t even get the name of the IICSA solicitor Martin Smith correct.

    Wedger has NOT yet been granted early disclosure by the IICSA and that is still being assessed.

    In light of previous leaks from a core participant (yep it was as suspected allegedly) to Watts highlighted in the Hoaxtead article, the IICSA have now adopted an apply for early disclosure process as opposed to a blanket “yes” for core participants.

    The IICSA preliminary hearing transcript (at the end of the hearing) regarding “Organised Networks” makes that application process clear. It was interesting to note that the legal representation was keen to stress Maggie Oliver prior to Wedger. Oliver needs to ditch Wedger tbh, he’s riding her reputation for his own purposes in my opinion and she’s being used.

    Furthermore, the issue of the 2003 legislation Wedger refers to in the video in this article on Hoaxtead creates another problem:

    One in which if Wedger’s claims were actually true then it would’ve been a Labour Party agenda (Blair was in power in 2003) in order to stop future claims coming out. This then creates an issue in that it was Labour Party members who were actively promoting and endorsing the false claims a decade or so later.

    Ooops Jon.

    There is growing evidence too that much of what Wedger claims was organised IS organised. But not by the people he claims it was nor to the extent that he has claimed.

    Indeed there is growing evidence and growing by the day that some ex-police officer(s) have a specific hand in certain events.

    One ex-police officer in particular (not Wedger (possibly yet)) who was actively attending arrests of celebrities on the back of leaks from various police forces. That person has created a whole career for himself on the back of similar falsehoods, including about his own rank and responsibilities whilst still a serving officer.

    Same individual was caught offering “victim” details to the media in 2001 after he left Surrey Police in 2000. He needed to take a different tack when Rebekah Brooks confirmed to the HASC in 2003 that The Sun newspaper and News of the World had been paying police officers. Thus he then went off to become a “police advisor” on programmes like Waking the Dead. But contrary to his own claims he was only a police advisor on Waking the Dead after it had been running for several years, thus his claims that “Boyd” was effectively based on him are like delusional.

    Same ex-police officer then went on to start Operation Yewtree. One theory on that is that he did so to cover up his own behaviour from coming to light and his facilitation of “victims” to Yewtree required the use of a list that he had already provided to the News of the World in 2001. He also required the primary previous “facilitator” Max Clifford out of the way in order to further his own agenda. Clear the decks so to speak. He facilitated the first complainant against Clifford to the Met. Then he facilitated more in order to bolster the allegations. At the same time as that he was actively involved with Operation Yewtree and had a massive conflict of interest.

    The organised element, therefore, is more likely ex-police officers and media outlets in furthering false allegations and misinformation, not the “establishment” being involved in some kind of massive paedophile ring. Although the Labour Party (yep them again) have a very close relationship with one specific set of media outlets and especially so during the Blair years as Prime Minister.

    They also had form for creating false allegations – the case of a Humberside councillor (Colin Inglis) being just one case in point. Inglis was falsely accused of child abuse by an individual and an organisation closely connected to this whole farce. That happened because he confronted then Home Secretary David Blunkett and refused to tow the party line on a specific matter. Blunkett allegedly arranged for Inglis to be “outed”. That case was effectively a template later adopted by others.

    What Wedger etc forget is that such massive ideas of “rings” etc would require specific people to stay quiet all the time. Sooner or later someone speaks out. Ironically, as Wedger himself claims to be doing now.

    The law of averages tells us that someone would’ve already done so if there was such a massive conspiracy that he claims. It is much more likely therefore that there may be small rings of criminals acting alone and in self interest in the same way terrorist cells work in isolation instead of some kind of massive organised conspiracy. As an ex-police officer he should already know that is the most likely scenario: isolated criminal elements.

    Wedger needs to be very careful what he now says and does at the IICSA and online too.

    If there is even a suspicion of him leaking confidential IICSA information to the likes of Watts and/or Brees ahead of hearings taking place then he’s finished. Because the IICSA clearly won’t let a repeat of the previous failures happen, that may ironically be why he’s been granted core participation – in order to set a trap. Or is that simply too much of a conspiracy theory?! 😉

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Very concerning that anyone this nutty/deluded could get core participatory status. But then, they also have the appalling Esther Baker, so the bar is very, very, low. On the upside, they do get cross-examined, and I’d image Mr. Wedger will not come out of this nearly as well as he thinks.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Sooo, Butlintwat’s going round saying that John Paterson is working for Hoaxtead 🙄

    Like

    • Here’s the Butlintwat comment (posted under an anti-HR video) to which I was replying. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to read the whole thing without zoning out or losing the will to live…

      Liked by 1 person

      • I’m puzzled who could be being referred to here/ South London gangster contacts. Threats to the police. Chief Constables targeted. Police refuse to act. Nope. Draws a blank. No idea. Perhaps a private prosecution would be in order?

        Liked by 1 person

        • We should refer Butlincat to D.C Griswald or whatever the hell his name is. And remind him that the Sarf London Gang are now all in their 80s and are residents in Maximum Security Twilight Homes.

          Liked by 1 person

  6. His reference to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 refers to the revised bad character rules there. The CJA replaced bad character rules for defendants which had been in place since 1898, and introduced a brand-new statutory regime for referring to the bad character of 3rd parties, including witnesses. This actually made it HARDER to cite the bad character of witnesses, quite the opposite of what Jon Wedger is saying.

    As anyone who thought about it for a second would realise, the Act does not class all witnesses as “dishonest”. That would make it rather pointless calling any witnesses, wouldn’t it? One of the grounds for admitting the bad character of DEFENDANTS (not witnesses) is that it is sought to prove they have a tendency to be untruthful (e.g. a conviction for perjury). So there’s no assumption that all defendants are dishonest, but the prosecution are entitled to show the court that they’ve been untruthful before. But as I say, that doesn’t apply to witnesses at all.

    If you want to see what the CJA says about witness bad character, go here: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/44/section/100. I don’t think you’ll find it a thrilling read. Basically it means that if there is something relevent which discredits a witness, the other side can call it, subject to very stringent conditions. It’s harder to call 3rd party bad character evidence than defendant bad character evidence – the test for 3rd parties is:

    The bad character has SUBSTANTIAL probative value in relation to a relevant matter which is of SUBSTANTIAL importance in the context of the case as a whole

    The equivalent test (there are others) for defendants is simply “it is relevant to an important matter in issue”

    As with all conspiricists, it’s impossible to know if they’re lying or confused. If Mr Wedger thought that the CJA decreed that all witnesses must be treated as dishonest, he must have been repeatedly suprised when courts appeared to believe them. To me it reads like something he made up for an audience ready to believe it, with a tenuous toe-hold to reality.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Wiltshire Plod certainly believed one of those with a criminal past who accused Ted Heath. Apart from one who is facing an upcoming trial in June there was another accuser who turned out to be a convicted pedophile currently serving a sentence.
      He claimed Heath murdered an 11 year old boy on Heath’s yacht and it led to the two-year £1.5million inquiry and a rather unsatisfactory report by the hapless Mike Veale.
      There have been endless claims by convicted criminals of abuse especially after investigating police turned up to interview them whilst they were in jail and mistakenly mentioned the compensation that would be available.

      Of course those with a criminal past can be abuse victims but the “trawling” for victims- a practice condemned by the House of Lords has led to numerous false claims and many were shown to be false with claimants not actually being residents in homes where abuse happened or getting their dates hopelessly wrong.

      All this was well documented with evidence by Richard Webster who sadly died at too young an age. God only knows what he would have thought of today’s happenings when presumably he thought these witch hunts were over.
      The problem with Jon Wedger is that he seems to believe every sensational accusation made even when there is no evidence.

      Like

  7. It’s funny, because in the video you can hear Wedger start to say “attack def-” but then he corrects himself to “attack witnesses”. Almost as though he knew the real answer but had decided to insert the more inflammatory one.

    Liked by 1 person

  8. What’s the gripe with Wedger, I don’t get it?

    He’s an ex Yard detective exposing child abuse.

    Why do you sick fucks have a problem with that?

    Like

    • It would be good if he didn’t tell lies. His tale of Foxy never ended with him explaining about her her conviction an imprisonment. My opinion, he was happy to give the impression she got away Scot free, which is misleading. So, I don’t trust him. I don’t trust the terms he uses “pimp” “child prostitute”. I don’t trust those he associates with. The ITNJ is run by a con artist. An obvious whackadoodle grifter. One look at his name Sir John Walsh of Brannagh should set off alarm bells in a decent copper’s mind. That it didn’t also makes me mistrust him. Why should I trust a medically retired copper that seems as thick as a brick and cannot spot obvious and easily checked lies?

      He can tell IICSA all he knows. I have no objections. I welcome it. He will be treated with respect I am sure. He will be listened to and if he has anything of substance to say,I hope it is considered.

      However, convincing a few of their smart people will not be as easy as getting likes on FB from the disaffected. He needs to spend cash money to increase his reach, after all. He isn’t as well regarded as he thinks he is.

      Like

      • HE’S EXPOSING CHILD ABUSE WHY CAN’T YOU TRUST HIM?

        What is his nefarious intention then, in exposing child abuse? Please tell me.

        Like

        • He has lied on multiple occasions. We are not the only ones who’ve caught him out. I’ve seen no evidence that he’s helped any children, but plenty of evidence that he’s working hard to build up his online presence. Why he is doing this is really something you would have to ask him.

          Liked by 1 person

Comments are closed.