'VIP child abuse ring’ accuser
served time in prison for fraud
Robert Mendick article still being used 23rd July 2018 so how then is a complaint to IPSO out of time?
What has happened to journalism? Labour Cllr Chris Fay is nothing to do with NAYPIC!
Simon Warr @bbcsimonwarr
'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.'
First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices.
Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled.
Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit.
There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since.
Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House'
Not true. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'.
Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
He was not a colleague. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see).
So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered.
Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”
The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried.
It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles.
Robert Mendick article still being used 23rd July 2018 so how then is a complaint to IPSO out of time?
What has happened to journalism? Labour Cllr Chris Fay is nothing to do with NAYPIC!
Simon Warr @bbcsimonwarr
Having won deserved damages against South Yorkshire Police & the BBC, will Sir Cliff Richard now turn his attention to convicted fraudster Chris Fay who has caused so much damage by spreading vile rumours? Or will Fay & co go on getting away with it? https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html …
1 Accuracy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html 'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.'
First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices.
Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled.
Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit.
There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since.
Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House'
Not true. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'.
Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
He was not a colleague. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see).
So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered.
Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”
The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried.
It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles.
A list of public figures accused
of child abuse, which was circulated on the internet, was drawn up by a former
social worker jailed in 2011 for his part in a fraud
Christopher Fay at his home in
South London Photo: Geoff Pugh/The Telegraph
By Robert Mendick, Chief Reporter
11:56PM BST 26 Sep 2015
A social worker who first named
Leon Brittan and other VIPs as members of an alleged paedophile sex ring was
jailed for fraud.
Chris Fay, now 69, drew up a list
of prominent public figures he said had visited a guesthouse in London where
children were abused.
It was compiled by Fay on
evidence he says was supplied by victims and the owner of the Elm Guest House
in south-west London, which has been at the centre of the allegations.
But Fay’s evidence has been
thrown into question by his fraud conviction.
Police are investigating historic abuse at Elm Guest House, and have
said that Cyril Smith, the Liberal MP, who was never prosecuted in
his lifetime, stayed there.
The VIP list identifies a number
of well-known figures and has added to concerns that individuals have had their reputations
shredded by potentially false but damaging claims.
Fay told The Telegraph he
regretted the list had been made public, conceded it contained the names of
innocent public figures and admitted it had sparked a witch hunt.
Clockwise from top left; Leon
Brittan, "Red Ron' Brown, Cyril Smith and Harvey Proctor
Fay insisted he never intended
the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet.
The two have fallen out.
Lord Brittan’s name topped Fay’s
list, but it also included Harvey Proctor and a number of other Tory MPs, and
Ron Brown, a former Labour MP, who is now dead. Mr Proctor vehemently denies the allegations.
Last week, the Metropolitan
Police admitted it was wrong to describe the evidence of one key alleged abuse
victim, who is said to have witnessed child murders, as “credible and true”.
The Telegraph also revealed last
week that another alleged abuse victim, who also claimed to have evidence of
two murders, had been convicted of making hoax bomb calls, had falsely confessed
to murder and been accused by a judge of telling “whopping lies”.
The Telegraph has now learnt that
Fay was jailed in 2011 for fraud.
Fay, a former Labour councillor,
was sentenced to a year in prison for being part of a scam in which pensioners
were conned out of almost £300,000.
The fraud victims were told they
were buying shares in property and Tesco but were issued with fake
certificates. Fay, of Blackheath, south-east London, helped to launder cash
through false bank accounts.
He had been a child social worker
with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began
compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House.
Mary Moss, a colleague,
circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr
Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
Fay, tracked down by The
Telegraph to his council flat, said his list was based on conversations with
Carole Kasir, the owner of the Elm Guest House, and interviews with abused boys
at NAYPIC.
Fay said Mrs Kasir had been
murdered – she died of an insulin overdose in 1990 – to cover up the abuse.
He repeated allegations he had
been making since Mrs Kasir’s death to Mr Watson in 2013. Mr Watson then passed
Fay’s details to police, which had begun an investigation into Elm Guest House
in December 2012.
Fay said: “My critics will say:
'He is a convicted fraudster so why should we believe the other things [he
says].’”
He added: “It was so wrong to put
that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people
to make up claims.”
This is what I sent to IPSO
their reply is at the end..
Complaint
Material published in print
and/or online
settingsEdit
Complaint details
Name of publication(s):
settingsEdit
The Weekly Telegraph (Telegraph
Media Group Ltd)
Publication not contacted
Clause(s) breached:
1 Accuracy
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11893906/VIP-child-abuse-ring-accuser-served-time-in-prison-for-fraud.html
'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.'
First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices.
Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled.
Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit.
There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since.
Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House'
Not true. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'.
Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
He was not a colleague. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see).
So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered.
Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”
The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried.
It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles.
'Fay insisted he never intended the list be made public but a former colleague had posted it on the internet. The two have fallen out.'
First Fay was not a colleague he was a social worker for Greenwich and an 'informer' to the NAYPIC re several Greenwich cases, where he alone researched and supplied the list to the organisation, after meeting several of the organisation's cases when he happened to be in the office meeting with NAYPIC and then approaching the cases himself outside of the NAYPIC offices.
Second inaccuracy the police approached a former NAYPIC development officer Mary Moss to ask for the list Fay had compiled.
Third inaccuracy Fay was banned from NAYPIC in the early nineties following information given to NAYPIC by their then funding body London Boroughs Grants Unit.
There was no personal falling out 'of the two', at all, she delivered the ban, however the information was severe enough for him to be banned since then and he has had no contact with any NAYPIC staff since.
Fourth inaccuracy; 'He had been a child social worker with the National Association for Young People in Care (NAYPIC) when he began compiling evidence from children allegedly abused at Elm Guest House'
Not true. He did some statistical research for the organisation where he volunteered to help produce a publication on case statistics called 'abuse in the care system'.
Fifth inaccuracy; Mary Moss, a colleague, circulated the list on the internet around December 2012, two months after Mr Watson had made his claims in Parliament.
He was not a colleague. I put the list on the internet because the police knew I still had it. They could have only got that information from Tom Watson who later claims he only met Mr Fay two months after Dec 2012 (in this article it is evident in the inaccuracy in the timeline for any fool to see).
So either Watson is lying, the police were lying and or the whole thing is a NAYPIC sabotage since we were in a lucrative court case over our HQ at the time of the police raid at my premises which produced the list and all the log books at the guest house to which were given to NAYPIC by Carol Cazier before she was murdered.
Sixth inaccuracy; He added: “It was so wrong to put that list online. It starts with hunts. That list could have encouraged people to make up claims.”
The sensitive data with the list as well as log books from the guest house and banking slips etc, were taken from me by police in a dawn raid on my house and I only circulated the documents because they could have been buried.
It was serial complex knowledge, I felt should be put into the public domain at the time rather than in police hands only, whom had no more right to the information as did the public, until such time as the information was investigated by NAYPIC who would then bring about court proceedings and protection for witnesses, instead of what turned out to be a shambles.
Independent
Press Standards Organisation - Our reference [IPSO: #12767-17#]
Lauren Hay
<lauren.hay@ipso.co.uk>
Wed 31/05,
13:32You
Dear Ms Moss,
I
write further to our earlier email.
You have
contacted the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), the independent
regulator for the newspaper and magazine industry in the UK. We uphold the
highest standards of journalism by monitoring and maintaining the requirements
set out in the Editors' Code of Practice, and provide support and redress for
individuals seeking to complain about breaches of the Code.
IPSO
accepts complaints which have been submitted, either directly to IPSO or to the
publication, within four months from the date of the first publication of the
article complained of. In the case of an online article which remains
accessible to the public on the publication’s website, IPSO may consider
complaints within 12 months of the date of its first publication. IPSO will,
however, take into account the length of time since the publication of the
article, as a delay in complaining may have an effect on IPSO’s ability to
fully investigate or adjudicate on a complaint.
It
appears that the article you have complained about falls outside this time
period and we will not, therefore, be able to assist you further with this
matter. I would suggest that the best way to proceed would be, if you have not
already done so, to contact the publication directly about this matter.
With
best wishes,
Lauren Hay
Systems Co-ordinator |
IPSO
Gate House 1 Farringdon Street London EC4M 7LG |
Tel: 0300 123 2220
Website: www.ipso.co.uk |
IPSO is the independent regulator of the newspaper and magazine
industry. We exist to promote and uphold the highest professional standards
of journalism in the UK, and to support members of the public in seeking
redress where they believe that the Editors' Code of Practice has been
breached. We are able to consider concerns about editorial content in
newspapers and magazines, and about the conduct of journalists.
|
PS and from what I know of Fay, I don't doubt the sabotage came partly from him and his cohorts too.
