Wednesday 16 April 2014

The Chandelier

JOHN DUKE WAS NOT THE FIRST former Bryn Estyn resident to seek compensation from Clwyd County Council for abuse he had allegedly suffered.

On the11th of December 1991, less than two weeks after the 'Independent on Sunday' article (and the day after the police had paid their first visit to Martin West in prison), a story appeared in the Wrexham Evening Leader under the headline,"Men Sue Over Abuse Claims."

The story was one of at least four similar pieces which appeared in the local press around this time. One of the other stories featured a prominent photograph of Darren Laverty.

The story which appeared on 11th of December, however, was printed alongside a picture of Peter Wynne.

MEN SUE OVER ABUSE CLAIMS..

Two men who say they were abused as youngsters in children's homes are suing Clwyd's social services department. Mr Peter Wynne and Mr Darren Laverty, both 24, claim they were victims of physical abuse and ritual humiliation at the Bryn Estyn Home in Wrexham.

They decided to act after widespread media publicity of an alleged police cover-up of abuse at the home.

They have contacted Wrexham solicitor Gwilym Hughes, who has confirmed he will be representing them.

Mr Wynne of Gwenfro, Wrexham, was a resident at Bryn Estyn between 1979 and 1984.

He said he was suing the Social Services for alleged neglect, alleging a series of incidents involving physical abuse. He said, "I was put in the home to avoid that sort of thing, but I ended up being subjected to it by members of staff themselves."

Mr Laverty, of Napier Square, Wrexham, says he was physically abused at both Bryn Estyn and another children's home in Gwynedd.

Mr Wynne, a machine operator with Brake Engineering, on the Redwither Industrial Estate, Wrexham, said life for many residents at the home was 

He alleges a catalogue of incidents, including;

'Having his face rubbed in splintered glass as a punishment for breaking a chandelier.'

'Having a tattoo transfer on his arm rubbed off with a matchbox.'

'Being picked up by the throat.'

Mr Wynne, who now has four young daughters, said he is acting to prevent another Bryn Estyn.

He said, 'I went through five years of hell and I don't want anyone else to suffer the same thing.'

This story suggests that Peter Wynne and Darren Laverty were now co-operating and were both being represented by the same solicitor.

To those that knew them this must have come as a shock.

During the time that they were at Bryn Estyn, Laverty constantly bullied Wynne, verbally tormenting him because he had no family and because of his supposed sexual underdevelopment.

Laverty would call him names such as 'orphan', 'homeless' and 'pubeless'.

*Laverty ironically was also a product of parental neglect, with an alcoholic father and a prescription drug addicted mother.*

When I met Darren Laverty in August 2004, and asked him about Peter Wynne, he immediately admitted that he and the other boys at Bryn Estyn used to bully him partly because it was easy to provoke Peter into a spectacular frenzy, which they found highly amusing.

'Dinky Wynne,' Laverty recalled, 'was our Playstation.'

*Wynne had already committed suicide by the time that Laverty boasted about his bullying and torture of Peter Wynne and much younger, very vunerable boys*

Because Wynne was one of the younger residents of the main school, and because he was effectively without any family to care for him, one member of staff, Liz Evans, took him under her wing.

She persuaded Matt Arnold to allow Wynne certain privileges to compensate for his emotional depravation. In particular, he was allowed to keep a Budgerigar which became his beloved companion.

One day, however, he found that the cage had been opened and the bird was nowhere to be found.

It was a measure of the way that Wynne regarded Laverty, that he always believed that it was Laverty who had opened the cage to torment him with the loss of his only friend.

Laverty of course, now says that he does not remember Wynne's Budgerigar.

However, he did recall another incident (all about him as was usually the case), involving another bird at Bryn Estyn.

When he was about fourteen, he found a baby Jay which had fallen out of it's nest. He took it back to his dormitory and fed it; 'I loved that bird.' But after a week or so, in his words, 'it croaked on me.'

Laverty, as expected, recalls that he was heart-broken. He recovered his composure however, and summoned his gang: 'come on lads, get down the fucking bank; my birds died and there's going to be a funeral.'

He led them to the grassy bank in the grounds, and he had them gather in a circle around him. As some twenty boys stood with their hands together and, in some cases, presumably, their eyes shut.

Darren Laverty said the Lords Prayer: 'Our Father, which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom Come......'

'That was my bird' he recalled twenty years later, 'it meant a lot to me.'

Laverty also recognised that he bullied Peter Wynne and others in a manner, which was completely 'out of order,' and seems to accept that, while they were at Bryn Estyn, Peter Wynne despised him.

When Laverty left Bryn Estyn in June 1983, he was transferred to Y Gwyngyll in Anglesey.

After 18 months, he went into lodgings and was finally discharged from care in 1985, aged 18.

Soon after that he was sent to a Detention Centre for three months. 'When I came out, I went to live in Wrexham and met a girl who's mother turned out to be a drug dealer. I went to prison for ten months for drug dealing and came out a reprobate - drinking, fighting and taking drugs.'

It was around this time that his relationship with Peter Wynne flared into violence. There are conflicting accounts as to why this happened, but it's easy to work out why this happened.

Wherever the truth may lie, however, it would seem that Wynne resolved to turn the tables against the person who had humiliated, bullied and tormented him in the past.

The first Laverty knew about it, was when there was a knock at the door of his Wrexham flat. When he opened it he found Peter Wynne standing in front of him brandishing a twelve-inch bayonet.

Wynne said 'Time for it, Laverty!' and raised the bayonet upwards to stab him in the neck or face.

Laverty, who now claims that he believed that Wynne had come to murder him, managed to deflect the blow with the result that, although he sustained injuries to his face, he remained standing.

Laverty also alleges at this point, one of Wynne's friends also advanced on him wielding a meat cleaver.

Laverty says he managed to get back inside the flat and barricaded himself in with a wardrobe.

He then called the police.

Peter Wynne was subsequently convicted for this attack and served a short prison sentence.

*It should be noted that Laverty made a successful claim for compensation against Peter Wynne*

When Wynne came out of prison, Laverty met up with him again in circumstances and for reasons which have never been satisfactorily explained.

As the Bryn Estyn investigation gathered pace in the autumn of 1991 in the wake of Dean Nelson's article, Wynne and Laverty appear to have forgotten their differences and were frequently seen together.

It was during this period that Peter Wynne's portrayal of Bryn Estyn, underwent it's dramatic change.

His original verdict on Bryn Estyn, that it was the best home that he had ever been in, and that he had enjoyed his time there, was communicated to the police on September 12, 1991.

By the time he gave his second statement, on 6 of January 1992, the account he gave of the home had been utterly transformed.

He now gave a vivid description of an incident which he had not even been mentioned in his first statement.

This incident, in which, incidentally, Darren Laverty played a key role, involved a horrific punishment which Wynne said had been inflicted on him by David Birch.

'On another occasion I was involved in an argument with one of the other lads called Darren Laverty. I remember we were in the dining room and Laverty called me names, and because he was a lot bigger than me I decided to hit him with a chair. I took hold of the chair and as I was swinging it over my head I hit a chandelier above my head and it shattered all three bulbs in it. The glass from the broken bulbs landed on the floor behind me and the next thing I remember was David Birch grabbing hold of the chair and he took it off me. When the chair had gone he still had hold of me and he told me to clean up the glass from the floor. I was in a temper so I refused to do it, saying that Laverty had started it so he should clean up the mess. Anyway he told me about four times to clean up the glass and I kept on refusing so he took hold of my legs and lifted them up in the air and held me face-down towards the floor. He then got me in such a position where he was holding both my arms and both my legs so that I could not move. He then pushed my head towards the floor until my face was right up against the broken glass with my legs pointing towards the ceiling. He pushed my face into the glass on the floor which caused me to recieve about 10 small cuts on my forehead. Two of these were quite deep and the others were only scratches. When he was doing this I kept on struggling and he kept saying 'Are you going to pick it up?' I think he held me there for some five or ten minutes although I can't be specific about the time. When he did let me go he just dropped me on the floor away from the glass, I got up, ran off in a craze and into the entrance to the dining room where, in a temper at what he had done to me, I smashed about six or eight small panes of glass in the sliding doors at the entrance to the dining rooms. I broke all these with my fists. I am not sure but I may have cut my hands doing this and I believe I had both my head cuts as well as the cuts on my hand treated by the Matron, Mrs Williams. When this incident occured I believe that Darren Laverty was present and saw what happened but I don't know if anyone else was.'

Although Wynne refers to a 'chandelier' it is clear from his reference to 'three bulbs' that what he had in mind was a simple light fitting. This aside, there are a number of features of the statement which raise questions. In the first place, it is barely credible that the incident that Wynne describes would, if the account is accurate, have been omitted from his initial statement. It is also curious that, at a time when both were making claims for compensation, Wynne should identify Laverty as the sole witness to what happened.

Laverty would later tell the police that he had indeed witnessed the incident which Wynne described.

More than five years later he repeated this claim in his evidence to the tribunal, and gave a vivid account of what had supposedly happened.

This account however, was never properly tested because the tribunal had failed to find the entry in the Bryn Estyn log book which referred to the incident.

As the tribunal report would later note, this entry was discovered only after the hearings had been completed.

The entry is dated 22 March 1984:

"[Peter Wynne] refused to wash his hands for Mr Birch at tea time. He was told he'd have his tea as soon as he did, but still refused. Peter said he didn't want any tea and went out of D/Room. I found him later in the kitchen waiting for Cook to make him some toast. When he was told he couldn't have any, he stormed back into the D/Room and smashed a light bulb, which he refused to sweep up."

The failure of the tribunal team to locate this entry is difficult to understand, not least because the police had already discovered it during their 1992 investigation.

In August 1992 they checked with Wynne, who confirmed that he could only recall one incident that involved breaking a light bulb. They then interviewed the House Mother who wrote the entry. She said that she did not recall Birch having to restrain Peter Wynne on any occasion and added "I do not recall Peter having any injuries at all on that day."

Judging by the statement they took from Wynne in August 1992, which discussed the date Laverty had left Bryn Estyn, the police had noticed a significant anomaly in the evidence before them.

For Darren Laverty had not been present in the dining room on the occasion recorded in the log book. Indeed he had not been at Bryn Estyn at all....

He had left the home on 6 June 1983, a full nine months before the dining room incident took place.

From other statements taken shortly after Wynne had made his allegation, it would appear that there probably was a physical confrontation between him and Birch.

But the log book entry which records the incident makes no mention to any injury.

Given that the House Mother on duty, whose integrity and reliability have never been questioned, would have been the first to know about any significant cuts or bleeding, and that Wynne himself had not mentioned the incident at all in his first statement, it seems likely that the injuries which he claimed to have sustained were a product of his imagination.

One thing which is certain is that the relationship between Birch and Wynne was exceptionally good, that it remained so after the incident in the dining room, and, indeed, after Wynne left Bryn Estyn. Liz Evans had confirmed this: 'Peter Wynne loved David Birch,' she told me.

'He used to look up to him like a dad.'

Wherever the truth about the incident may lie, there can be no doubt at all that the version of events that Wynne gave to the police, in January 1992 was simply untrue. Wynne's claim that the incident had it's origins in a clash between him and Laverty was clearly false. In this respect perhaps the most telling piece of evidence comes from another former resident, Christopher Hands.

While being cross-examined at the tribunal, Hands was referred to a statement he had made in August 1992 in which he had offered his version of events (which did suggest that Wynne had sustained some minor injuries). In this statement he had specifically said 'I do not believe that Darren Laverty was there.' Hands confirmed this: 'I do say that and that's true..... I thought he'd left.'

Hand's evidence on this point removes all doubt about the status of the testimony given by Wynne and Laverty. All the evidence indicates that they had arrived jointly at this version of the incident which Wynne related to the police in January 1992.

Whether Laverty had by this time become so highly suggestible, and so prone to imagining incidences of abuse, that he quite genuinely believed he had witnessed this one seems possible. It was also the case though, that Wynne and Laverty were both using the same solicitor to make a claim for compensation.

The untrue story which which they both now told would make a successful outcome much more likely.

The fact that both Wynne and Laverty appeared to have a financial motive for making up stories, however, should not be taken to indicate that this was their only motivation.

Laverty in particular, appears to have been driven by the kind of zeal which is sometimes shown by those who have a disadvantaged, or, indeed criminal background. He frequently acted in the manner of a campaigner - or even as a born-again evangelist, convinced of the need to do battle with all that is evil.

If Darren Laverty had by this point, embarked upon a crusade, it would seem that he had succeeded in enlisting the services of Peter Wynne to help him. In her evidence to the tribunal, Liz Evans said that she had kept in touch with a number of former residents after Bryn Estyn had closed in 1984. While she was being cross-examined by David Kniftin, the following exchange took place:

KNIFTON: did you ever from your dealings with any of the boys obtain an understanding that any if them were collecting allegations, if you understand what I mean by that, going round other boys bringing forward further allegations?

EVANS: yes... Liam Hempnall told me that a couple of boys had gone to his house to...... Encourage him to make allegations.

CHAIRMAN: this is a rather serious allegation. What did he say?

EVANS: he told me that a couple if boys had gone to his house.

CHAIRMAN: did he name the boys?

EVANS: he did, yes.

CHAIRMAN: who were they?

EVANS: Darren Laverty and Peter Wynne.

During this period Laverty and Wynne spent a great deal of time together and frequently talked to other former residents about their time at Bryn Estyn. In one particular case, which involved a former resident of Bryn Estyn, the part played by Darren Laverty would, as we will eventually see, have very serious consequences....

It is not clear to what extent the North Wales Police were aware that their evidence was being contaminated in this way. In relation to some allegations they continued to show a degree of scepticism. But their principal concern at this stage of their enquiry seems to have been less with investigating the complaints they were collecting, than with attempting to confirm them. The easiest route to such apparent confirmation was to go out and collect more allegations. This approach was a novel one. But they were now taking part in one of the most unusual operations in the history of British policing.

This operation would have a decisive influence on the methods adopted during the next decade by practically every police force in Britain....

Bryn Estyn (Section Eighteen)

16 Febuary 2000
I'd been doing Peter's portrait, finally making a start
Drawing all the detail, in a photo state of art
I recieved a telephone call, from my darling mother
"Have you heard the news?" She asked, "It's about your brother
Go and buy a newspaper, Daily Mirror or Daily Mail
It's about Bryn Estyn; it's like the weather as a gale
It tells of all the horrors, with childrens abuse
And tells why Peter died, and chose to use a noose"
I finished what I was doing, all things made a drop
And hurried down the High Street, to a paper shop
'650' was boldly written, on the heading page
That's how many were abused, roughly as a gauge
Perverts run the children's home, where the kids did dwell
Sexually abusing them, making lives a living hell
An investigation started, coz Peter made a complaint
With another who'd been abused, and both became a saint
Both went to the police, and started the interviews
When the story surfaced, it was highlighted on the news
I started to read the Mirror, to find out all the fact
And read a certain paragraph, of someone Peter attacked
He'd spotted him in a pub, then he went straight home
And got a Samurai sword, whilst he was on his own
He broke the sword in half, and put it in his jacket
Returning back to the pub, to make an awful racket
As I read the interview, I instantly realized
Why Peter had attacked him, which was no surprise
The abuser was abused, which he freely admitted
But was never punished, or even ever committed
Peter then got punished, and of which got sent to jail
Given a 6 month sentence, sending him off the rail
Peter had struck his face, three times with the sword
Slashing open the abusers nose, with the anger stored
Bryn Estyn got shut down, when the news had shaken
16 then committed suicide, if I'm not mistaken
With soon getting the answers, of Peter's suicide
I wished he hadn't done it, and hadn't bloody died
I read the Daily Mail next, reading pages of a few
And saw Peter's picture, not just one but two
There was a story written, why he was in care
With some slight confusion, coz the reporter wasn't there
I won't give all the reasons; but he broke my mother's heart
Making her so very ill, with the things he used to start
He'd been given two options, I remember much of them
One was to change his ways, and to be good again
He chose the other option, which of course was care
It was his own undoing, and why that he was there
He'd been a little tear-away, always in a fight
I always blame the divorce, which had caused the plight
Another thing the story said, he was missing his head-stone
Where he was laid to rest, buried on his own
I had wanted to choose it, but was locked away
And several years has passed, before that I could lay
He'll never be forgotten, although he is deceased
So my darling Peter, my brother Rest In Peace

(9th November 1967 - 6th January 1994)

By Stephen Wynne.

Saturday 12 April 2014

A Place Of Safety

ON MONDAY 25 January 1999, immediately after Newsnight, BBC2 broadcast a documentary, A Place of Safety, about sexual and physical abuse in children's homes in North Wales. Many who saw it found it one of the most harrowing programmes about abuse they had ever watched. 

 As the North Wales Tribunal, the longest and most costly public inquiry in British legal history, gets nearer to publishing its report, the BBC had lined up a succession of witnesses who were prepared to speak about the years and years of child abuse they said they had experienced.

All of them were adults. Almost all of them were men.

With one exception they spoke full-face to the camera and allowed their names to appear on screen.

They spoke of beatings and of bullying by the staff who were employed to care for them, of habitual sexual assaults and of cruelty and neglect on a scale that, ten years ago, would have been beyond belief. 

 As the programme went on, it became clear why North Wales has now become almost a synonym for abuse. Sir William Utting, chairman of the National Institute of Social Work, said on the programme: 'I think this is one of the names that will continue to resonate through childcare over the coming decades because it establishes a kind of benchmark for the combination of things that can go wrong in residential childcare . . . It will be the name that's used to terrify future generations of childcare workers.' 

This is now the received view of North Wales, held alike by journalists, social workers and politicians. But there is a problem with the story of North Wales. It is a problem that the BBC programme illustrated repeatedly and disturbingly. 

The first witness to appear on the programme was Brian Roberts. He had been sent to Bryn Estyn, the home said to have been at the centre of a web of abuse, in 1970 when it was still an approved school.

Standing in front of the buildings he said: 'It was just like something out of a horror movie, the beatings, the abuse, the sexual abuse. It was disgusting.' As atmospheric music played and the camera cut to a shot of crows perching on nearby tree-tops, Roberts went on to say that a man (whom he did not name) had taken him into the gym and attempted to bugger him. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Brian Roberts only made his allegation of sexual abuse after watching a television programme about Bryn Estyn in 1997. This programme, which dealt with the setting up of the North Wales Tribunal, had mentioned the conviction of Peter Howarth, the deputy head of Bryn Estyn, for sexually abusing adolescents in his care.

(It did not mention that Howarth, now dead, always protested his innocence, or that some of his former colleagues still believe he was wrongly convicted.) 

Roberts immediately contacted the tribunal and told them that he, too, had been sexually abused by Howarth. He then made a formal statement to this effect.

At this stage it was pointed out to him that Howarth had not begun working at the school until November 1973, three years after he had left. 

Far from being sexually abused by Howarth, Roberts had never met him. 

The next witnesses to appear on the programme were Keith and Tony Gregory. Tony described a regime where physical abuse was commonplace. He said: 'You'd let it happen to you. You'd let the staff punch you in the face, or in the stomach, or throw things at you.'

He went on to make even more serious claims, including that he had seen Peter Howarth sexually abusing one of the residents. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Tony Gregory had also given evidence to the North Wales Tribunal. One of the allegations he had made concerned a Mr Clutton who, he said, had thrown a leather football at his face so hard that it had almost broken his nose. During cross-examination it was pointed out that, although there had been a Mr Clutton on the staff of Bryn Estyn, he had left in 1974, three years before Tony Gregory had arrived. 

The next witness to appear on the programme was Steven Messham. He said that on one occasion, when he had been in the sick-bay with blood pouring from his mouth, he had been buggered by Howarth as he lay in bed. He said that on another occasion he was asked to take a hamper of food to Howarth's flat, where he was buggered by Howarth over the kitchen table. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that Messham claims he was sexually abused by no less than 49 different people. He also says he has been physically abused by 26 people. In 1994 the Crown Prosecution Service declined to bring his allegations against Howarth to court. None of his allegations has ever resulted in a conviction. In 1995 one of his most serious sexual allegations was rejected by a jury after barristers argued that it was a transparent fabrication. 

The next witness was Andrew Teague. Teague said he had been beaten and sexually abused by one unnamed member of staff and that he had also been sexually abused by Howarth. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that, although Teague had at one point agreed to appear as a witness at the North Wales Tribunal, .

The tribunal declined to use its powers to subpoena him. Counsel to the tribunal, however, did read out a statement which Teague had made to the North Wales police in 1992. In this statement he made allegations of physical abuse but clearly said:  His main allegation was of serious and repeated physical abuse by a care worker, Fred Rutter.

It was later pointed out to the tribunal that Teague was at Bryn Estyn between 1977 and 1978. Rutter, however, did not start working there until 1982.     

The next witness to appear was Andrew Treanor. He said that he had been abused at Ty'r Felin in Gwynedd, when a member of the care staff had punched him in the face. 

 What the BBC did not tell us was that in 1992 the North Wales police took a statement about a similar incident from a young woman who had been in care with Treanor. In her statement she recalled that Treanor had been arguing with a member of staff: 'Following the argument Treanor came to join us by the steps to the loft. He had a bruise on his face from an earlier incident 

The next witness did not appear under his real name, and was filmed in shadow. He told of how, some ten years ago, he had been sexually abused by Stephen Norris, the officer in charge of Cartrefle children's home. His testimony was detailed and convincing. There is a wealth of evidence to indicate that the sexual abuse he described (and which he complained of at the time) did indeed happen. Norris, who had previously worked at Bryn Estyn, subsequently pleaded guilty to offences against boys in his care and has served two prison sentences. 

Partly if the selection of witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safety is in any way representative, then the programme itself would seem to indicate that  

By far the most disturbing feature of the programme, however, was that the journalists who worked on it failed utterly to discharge the most basic duty of all journalists - the duty to investigate. 

The real question raised by the programme is not whether every detail of the complaints made in it was true or false. It is whether the witnesses it featured should have been relied on by responsible journalists.  In some cases they had tried to uphold their allegations even when the details of their complaints had been shown to be impossible.

Brian Roberts, for example, after having learnt that he could not have been abused by Peter Howarth, said that he had mistaken the identity of the staff member involved. The trouble, he said, was that 'we never knew the staff directly by their names, it was either Sir or Miss'.

According to those who knew Bryn Estyn at the time, Roberts' account of an institution whose staff had no names bears no relationship to reality. 

In most cases the amount of research needed to uncover the unreliability of the witnesses who appeared on A Place of Safetywas minimal. In the cases of Roberts, Gregory and Teague, for example, all the BBC needed to do was consult the relevant portions of the transcript of the North Wales Tribunal.

Yet even this piece of elementary journalistic research, which would have taken hours rather than days, appears to have been too much for them. The result was a programme that undoubtedly shocked many who saw it but which is actually far more shocking as an example of the low level to which some television journalism has fallen. 

The low standards of this BBC programme are all the more worrying in view of the planned publication, later this year, of the report of the North Wales Tribunal. This report was referred to in the programme. Steven Messham, the man who claims he has been abused by more than 70 different people (and who also frequently appears on Channel 4 News), spoke of the promise made by Gerard Elias QC that the tribunal would 'leave no stone unturned in its search for the truth'.

Messham went on to suggest that this was not so because the tribunal had failed to give proper consideration to the idea that a paedophile ring had organised a network of abuse in North Wales care homes. 

What the BBC did not tell us was that other observers have criticised the tribunal from a quite different point of view. In particular they point out that, although considerable doubt surrounds the conviction of Peter Howarth, the tribunal has explicitly declined to consider this question. The tribunal says that it is bound by the doctrine of res judicata, which prevents it from investigating matters that have already been brought before the courts. This may well have been a legally correct decision. But the effect of the ruling is to prevent Howarth's barristers from challenging the soundness of his conviction. 

In other words, one stone must remain unturned. And since the stone in question is nothing less than the foundation stone on which the entire North Wales story has been built, there are those who hold the view that the tribunal has not been able to conduct a proper inquiry at all. 

The North Wales Tribunal has cost the taxpayer an estimated £15 million, but if this expenditure is unprecedented, so too is the difficulty of the task it faces. No amount of money can buy access to the truth and we must hope that the tribunal will not end by wholly or partly endorsing a received view of the story of North Wales that is fundamentally false. 

But in view of the doubts that surround the story of North Wales - doubts that A Place of Safety, by its choice of witnesses, inadvertently illustrated - it is extremely important that the report, when it eventually appears, is thoroughly examined. For that to happen it is essential that the report is scrutinised by journalists who have themselves researched the story in depth, and whose appetite for sex, sensation and scurrility does not overpower their capacity to judge between what is true and what is false. 

On this front, the only reassuring news to have emerged since the broadcast of A Place of Safety is that the tribunal report is now unlikely to appear until the summer. This gives journalists both in the BBC and in other media throughout Britain at least three more months to research the story thoroughly themselves.

If we are to judge by the quality of journalism apparent in the BBC's A Place of Safety, they will need all this time and more. 

http://stevemoxon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/not-first-time-bbc-newsnight-completely.html?m=1

Steven Messham

Simply put, Steve Messham is a conman.

Nothing more and nothing less.

He went into the North Wales care system from an abusive family home and was well aware of how the system worked from an early age. From his stories, which are many, he appears to have been abused from everybody from Scout leaders to the man in the corner shop.

There is ample proof to substantiate the fact that he was undoubtably abused both at home and at some point after entering the care system, but that is the only thing that is for certain.

It is however a flight of fancy on his part when he relates his constant accusations of 'gang rape' by persons unknown and the numbers involved in his alleged abuse change each time he tells the story.

Still Stalking



Still at it after more than thirty years.


Selfies


The Narcissistic and completely sociopathic Darren Laverty AKA Ryan Tanner.

Whenever a story appears about Bryn Estyn, it is guaranteed that Laverty will be around somewhere dripping poison and spreading lies.

He can normally be found with a Go-Pro camera, stalking, spying on and generally creeping people out.