Mr Wedger, time for your fact check

Yesterday we shared a Facebook video from ex-Met police officer Jon Wedger, who made a number of claims in it regarding his recent appointment as a core participant in the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA).

Since that post was published, we’ve received information from several sources, debunking nearly everything Wedger stated in his video, which echoed information in a tweet he posted on 8 March 2019 in response to this one from Mark Watts:

In response to a query about this tweet, an official at the IICSA made the following response:

This email debunks Wedger’s claim to have been accepted as a core participant in the Westminster investigation, and states that in addition, he was denied CP status in the Accountability and Reparations investigation, as we’ve already pointed out here.

The email was sent prior to Wedger’s acceptance as a core participant in the Child Sexual Exploitation in Organised Networks strand of the Inquiry, which invited applications at the end of March 2019—so at the time of writing, Wedger was officially unaffiliated with the IICSA.

In reference to Wedger’s claim that his “evidence was classed as credible, corroborative & compelling”, the IICSA email points out, “The Inquiry makes no determinations upon the credibility of evidence until it produces its reports, some months after the public hearings.

Wedger claims in his tweet that “IICSA sought a judicial review as a core participant stating I was too low-ranked to give evidence”. He reiterated part of this claim in Friday’s video, stating,

…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.

The IICSA version, unsurprisingly, is quite different:

The Inquiry does not make decisions based on the rank of officers, nor has it been subject to a judicial review in this matter.

The IICSA also pointed out that Wedger had got the name of the Inquiry’s solicitor wrong, but we’re willing to accept that that might have been a genuine error on Wedger’s part, and not a deliberate untruth.

Some of this information was discussed on the TrollExposure blog last week.

But wait! There’s more!

In Friday’s video, Wedger made some rather extraordinary claims about the Criminal Justice Act:

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.

Commenter Naqsej pointed out that Wedger seemed to have got it back to front:

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.

Oddly, in the video where Wedger made this strange claim, he appeared to stutter over the phrase “to attack witnesses”—he started to say “to attack def–” but then corrected himself to “witnesses”.

Almost as though he knew the real answer, but remembered at the last minute to insert the more inflammatory version.

Lies and the Spreading of Fake Information

37 thoughts on “Mr Wedger, time for your fact check

  1. Oh dear it just gets messier.
    Why isn’t Wedger just happy being a witness?. Whatever evidence he claims he has is not made any more or less credible by having a title like “core participant”.
    And the notion that a “lowly” person’s rank in any organisation would preclude them or infer their evidence is less believable is pretty insulting to the entire legal system. The whole notion is that we are all to be treated equally under the law (not always achieved of course).

    Hundreds of residents of children’s care homes have also over the past 2 decades received substantial compensation for proved abuse and sadly, the vast majority of them are from the lower strata of society.
    Recall a rather controversial journalist who made bizarre claims about the former MP Barbara Castle giving him a “dossier” gave evidence and he’s hardly a bastion of Fleet Street, rather a regular contributor to the more down market titles.
    Seems like someone is really trying to build a new career as a supposed expert on child abuse in an already crowded field.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Mark Watts also inadvertently exposes his own prejudicial train of thought that most likely helped lead to the demise of the bizarre Exaro website.
    Once again this term “whistle-blower” is bandied about and used as a cover-all term to include those who make outlandish and unproved accusations.
    Genuine whistle-blowers are those who put themselves at risk to produce real evidence to expose underhand or unlawful dealings.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. There is another matter which Hoaxtead to date may have overlooked re Wedger (I’ve not checked back through the Hoaxtead archives so apologies in advance if already covered): The use of a specific “police whistleblower” forum/group in early reporting on Exaro News about alleged VIP paedophilia.

    The then Exaro reporter Alex Varley-Winter claimed to have been given access to such a forum by an administrator of the forum, around the same as Wedger had claimed to have setup such a mechanism. She produced at least 2 reports on Exaro News about the content of such a forum/group.

    The content on the forum/group in question was allegedly confirming various stories which have since been totally debunked by various police investigations. In other words, it was possibly a setup run by Wedger and friends using various different aliases on the supposedly closed Facebook group.

    This issue was highlighted as part of another blog entry on trollexposure: https://trollexposure.wordpress.com/2019/02/22/wedged-scripts/

    If Wedger was/is feeding information to Exaro/Watts, and there is a clear link now between him, Brees and Watts, then Wedger should actually be investigated for his role in the whole “Nick” saga. Why? Because Varley-Winter reported on the contents of the forum/group in December 2014 which puts the material on there at least pre-December 2014. This is another reason why his core participation status and potential access to early disclosure is a problem for the IICSA.

    Plus IF that was Wedger’s group being referenced by Exaro, he betrayed the trust of supposedly other police whistleblowers (even if they weren’t really) and that should be raising alarm bells for Maggie Oliver for example.

    If he setup the forum/group he’d be the one with the admin rights to allow Varley-Winter in or to authorize others to have the same admin rights.

    Re Don Hale referenced above by Sam Best, Hale like Wedger, Watts and Brees is all self-promotion and little in substance/accuracy. The fact that he didn’t take contemporaneous notes to the events he has later described (conveniently waiting until after Barbara Castle was dead btw) demonstrates his own need to likely fictionalize material and jump on a bandwagon. He seems to misinterpret the fact that he gave a statement about an alleged event as being proof that the alleged event actually took place too.

    Let’s put it like this re Hale: If Castle wanted to put a massive story out there like Hale claimed all she had to do was either approach a well-respected investigative journalist such as John Pilger at the time or someone she had contact with through her ex-Fleet Street husband.

    The timing of the events Hale claimed happened was in the middle of the miner’s strike and any attack on government ministers with the sort of material Hale claimed would’ve been dynamite for a hungry reporter.

    There was no need for Castle to go to a provincial non-entity, like Hale was, when the alleged events took place. I’m hoping the IICSA will at some point be demanding further witness statements from Hale to clear up some of his clearly contradictory statements.

    Thus I have a lot of sympathy for today’s police trying to investigate such claims as those of Hale etc because they are damned if they do and damned if they don’t, it’s a catch-22 situation for them. Which made it even more important that corners like “belief” in someone’s story weren’t introduced into the mix.

    What now needs to happen however is that the truth about such material as Hale, Wedger, Watts etc claimed is established – which is likely one reason why the Exaro star “witness” is now facing multiple criminal charges.

    Trial due to start tomorrow in Newcastle Crown Court btw which may also explain the timing of Wedger’s video. Got to keep the “troops” onside eh? 😉

    Liked by 2 people

  4. If Labour MP Castle really did have vital information about an alleged VIP pedo ring & didn’t wish to reveal matters herself there is one respected journalist she would have gone straight to : Paul Foot on the Mirror and who wrote for Private Eye.
    Why she would bother with a stringer like Hale is a mystery.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Hale’s claims about Barbara Castle are utterly absurd. At the time he claims this happened she was still a working and well connected politician. She had been a journalist. Her husband had been a journalist. She still wrote newspaper columns and books and could employ researchers to help with the latter. Why should she turn to the editor of the Bury Messenger. Not even a real newspaper but a freesheet mainly consisting of advertising with a small amount of local news and features.

    According to Hale the ringleader of these PIE sympathisers was Rhodes Boyson. The papers would have had a field day with that story given that he had repeatedly publicly called for PIE to be outlawed.

    More to the point what had she to fear from going public if she was concerned about PIE sympathisers in Parliament ? Was ‘the establishment’ going to send the albino monk after her?

    It’s complete nonsense from start to finish and the IICSA did a useful service in giving Hale enough rope to tie himself up in his inability to keep his ridiculous stories straight from one telling to another.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Well, that seems to answer my question from yesterday, he’s not confused, he must know what really happened. It was presumably said for a purpose.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. “This is the biggest story in the history of the World” 🙄

    Another hilarious round of death threats from Praterson (naturally promoted by his lapdog Andy Devine), who reckons he was on his way for a meeting with his gangster mates on a canal barge
    😂

    Particularly hilarious is his inability to get anyone’s name right. “Stephen Keynes”, “George Doofer”, “Twinkle” (instead of Sparkle)…

    Liked by 2 people

  8. Meanwhile, Fabooka’s been making death threats to EC’s family (through his fake ‘Papa Hemp’ account). He’s still pretty butt-hurt about his blog being taken down, it seems:

    (Name of protected witness redacted)

    Like

  9. It might just be me, but every time I see a Divine, Cat, Power-Disney et al post or comment, my first thought is “10’s of million sperm and they were the fast ones”.

    Liked by 3 people

  10. It’s just not fair.
    No matter how hard I try I never get included in these Hollywood style spectaculars. At least Johnny Paterson reckons he’ll get the Sarf London Mob to take me on with their walking frames.
    Cat seems to suffer from Body Dysmorphic Disorder.
    And I guess it’s pointless pointing out the irony in attacking others who have so-called “troll accounts” ( ie: a reluctance to reveal personal details in order to avoid being accused of murdering babies as a member of a Devil Worshiping Cult and having your face superimposed onto a body the accuser is terrified they may develop one day) from a errr.. troll account.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Devine Bar Thought For The Day (recommend toking on a joint to fully understand the depth of this Philosophical Statement that makes Aristotle look like an amateur) :
    ❤ WE ALL CAN AGREE 3+3 =6 WE CAN ALL AGREE FACTS SPEAK FOR THERESELF. COMMON SENSE CAN BE COMMON IF WE ALL DO OUR DUTY OF CARE OF THE SHARING OF THE FACTS FOR THE PEOPLE(S) COMPREHENSION ❤ SHARINGS CARING

    Liked by 2 people

  12. I may be alone, but I don’t think Mr Wedger realises he will be under scrutiny, so I am all for him appearing and being questioned. As he should be, if his evidence is to inform reports, his evidence will be tested. We will all see what he has to say about things. It will be interesting to me at least, if he has any great insight, bring it on.

    Personally, looking forward to reading the police report of the investigation into his claims. The one where they go and speak to everyone he worked with if he mentions something happening at a particular time. The one where they look at the investigation into Foxy. To see what I mean, look at the Westminster strand. Wedger must realise all the stuff is available. His dossier of claims already went to the police, he tried to hand it into the Home Office. Need an operation name.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Is anyone else as fed up of the You Tube arguments as I am? What has all the argy bargy got to do with Hoaxtead? Or did I miss something?

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I honestly haven’t seen, because I don’t look. I always try to confine myself to factual and polite informative comments on videos of the hoax believers. By and large they stay up and I don’t get accused of being a troll. I might get accused of all sorts of other stuff mind. Hopefully this way I can plant a few seeds of logic in people’s minds. Pookster was always the best at this.Sheva is always polite as far as I have seen.

    Mind you, if anyone sees Abraham Christie, my politeness may be ditched just for him.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. So weird.
    Why would they think a pair of young healthy adults wouldn’t actually have a real baby when the entire world’s media will be documenting the hapless kid’s every move for the next few decades?.
    And I know we inherit lots of things from our parent’s genes etc but the notion that an entire bloodline all act as one (as in rape and cannibalism etc) defies all studies of human nature over the aeons.
    They of course know better though because..it’s on a website somewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

  16. I’ve no idea what started all this off but I wish people would stop using the Hoaxtead name in relation to it. I can’t see how Hoaxtead, which is a blog run by EC and Scarlet, can be held responsible for what people do away from this page tbh.

    If there’s any truth to what Cips Clips says (i.e. there’s gang stalking going on) then ffs folks, either stop it and resolve your problems sensibly or adopt some group name that isn’t Hoaxtead so that your group name gets the blame. I don’t appreciate being identified with this crapola.

    I’ve no idea if what Cips Clips says is true because I don’t spend much time on You Tube or follow drama (except for Game of Thrones) so I’m not blaming anyone. It just seems to me that a situation has developed that could have been managed without resorting to nastiness and insults.

    I’m open to being put right if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick with all this.

    Liked by 1 person

  17. I responded to something on another person’s comment about some of the things going on in YouTube land on another thread and I see my response was deleted, so if I did or said something inappropriate I can only apologise. Any offence caused was unintentional.

    Mad Carew, I think you are very wise to try to watch sensible videos and I might try to emulate your example.

    I don’t “belong” to Hoaxtead – I’m just an intermittent reader and commenter but some of the arguments coming from the other side of the fence do seem infantile (to me at least). I know that the abuse of children is a serious subject and an emotional one but I can’t understand why people who believe that the original claims made in the Hampstead case were true don’t make rational arguments, something like “I believe the original accusations because x,y, z….and I think you are mistaken.” instead of accusing anyone with a different stance on the matter of being in favour of paedophiles or threatening them. One thing about the internet, any threats made can be seen by third parties.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. I too would have thought Paul Foot.

    “a well-respected investigative journalist such as John Pilger at the time”

    Well respected “at the time” is open to debate. Now, definitely not!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Not just under scrutiny. Won’t he be under oath? It’ll be interesting to compare what he is willing to say when he can be arrested for perjury and jailed for contempt against his “for entertainment only” You Tube nonsense.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. I love the way John praterson claims to mingle with gangland and then moans that he’s had to report someone for copyright lol not very gangster like John smh

    Liked by 2 people

  21. Re the missing comment, I’ve checked the spam and trash folders, and don’t see anything from you. I’m sorry, I think WordPress just randomly eats comments from time to time. 😦

    Like

  22. I don’t know what happened Office Tapir, I thought the comment had disappeared yesterday but see it today (7.5.2019).

    Like

  23. @mad carew, imo the term hoaxtead trolls is referring to all or most ppl who disagree with the rubbish they spout and as for gang stalking claims this probably in reality refers to a group of ppl who disagree with the rubbish they spout, iow they are big fat liars

    Like

  24. Pingback: IICSA: Why Wedger but not Sabine? | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.