As regular Sloggers will recall, I posted in the last ten days on the subject of pseudonymous allegations made against professional Paedofinder Mark Williams-Thomas, and his client England Hockey. I have this morning removed this post from The Slog because it has been alleged by both MWT and EH that the piece was distorted and incorrect.
Let me make it clear at the outset that I have no reason to doubt England Hockey’s word, because they have no ulterior motive of which I’m aware to lie. And it is in response to their plain and professional request for distortion to be corrected that I have removed the February 13th post.
However, while it is incumbent upon me to establish allegations as facts as rigorously as possible, both Mr Williams-Thomas and England Hockey are in a cosy position here….while I find myself over a barrel staring at Catch 22: they demand that I print the facts, but will not release the facts because they are confidential. I’m thinking of changing my name to Rossarian.
Either way, these are the facts as I’ve been able to establish them:
Steve McNab is the pseudonym I have chosen for a hockey-playing teacher who alleges that he was accused and cleared of paedophilia charges by his school and the local Plod. Mr McNab further alleges that (1) EH then hauled him before a disciplinary hearing anyway and (2) in the end EH stated, as he left the meeting, that his ability to play hockey would not be discontinued. Further (3) after he left, EH changed their minds and handed him a lifetime ban. Mr McNab reached the not unreasonable conclusion that, after his departure, EH had been influenced by their paid consultant Mark Williams-Thomas.
Both EH and MWT vigorously deny the allegations…but will not publish any details, as the case is confidential. Thus far, EH have been entirely honourable in refraining from accusation against Mr McNab, merely stating that the allegations I passed on at The Slog are inaccurate. Not so Mr Williams-Thomas. These extracts are from two emails he has sent to me so far – for which I am using page capture to avoid any doubt about what was actually written by him. The opening salvo is classic MWT:
“I know exactly who you are”. Um, yes. Then followed by “even though”, which is illogical as a connection. Anyway, while coy about the case details, MWT is happy to assert Mr McNab’s guilt this this slur:
Nothing new there then. The first half is inaccurate, but the second bit is most odd. Mr Williams-Thomas says the man involved in the EH hearing has distorted the facts, but he doubts his existence. One wonders what or who sat in the chair before the disciplinary committee.
Still, Mark is very keen to big up his MA in all communications: but the fact that yes, he does indeed have one, is depressing given the nature of this extract:
And quite right too, Marky-Mark: you remain progressional, chum. And processional, court’sinsessional and even infinitessimal if it floats your boat. Because if there’s one thing this world doesn’t need Mark, it’s yet more inaccurate distorts. God help us, there are enough as it is. What we need Mark is more folks who are professional.
Anyway, I now gently ping the ball over the net into EH and MWT’s half of the Kangaroo Court. We will see what (if ever) they produce in terms of new information. And then we shall know the full strength.
I should just like to reiterate that I think it perfectly possible (I’m being neutral here, not ironic) that England Hockey is entirely correct in its assessment of the evidence against Mr McNab. However, we don’t know what that evidence is. All we know is that Mr McNab faces a lifetime ban on the basis of it. That is extra-judicial secrecy, and it sets a dangerous precedent. We already have Family Courts and NHS HR Courts condemning the media to silence. I am sure that the honourable folks in charge of England Hockey would accept that, in a free society, everyone is entitled to a fair trial free from slur, supposition and innuendo.
I am interested only in facts, and these are the facts as I now understand them. Onward and upward. Doubtless further events will follow in the increasingly celebrated life of Mark Williams Thomas. In the meantime, I leave you with this fact: two Freedom of Information Act requests have been lodged with Surrey Police as to the disciplinary record of Mark Williams-Thomas during his very brief career there. This is the more detailed of the two:
9 September 2013
Dear Sir or Madam,
Under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 I seek the following
With reference to the sheer quantity of information that was placed
on HOLMES 2 following Operation Ore, I understand that it was
necessary to give several uniformed police officers temporary
status as Temporary Detective Constables in order to assist with
enquires to be actioned, including within Surrey Police.
1. Could you please confirm whether Mr Mark Williams-Thomas was one
of those uniformed officers.
2. Could you please inform me whether Mr Mark Williams-Thomas has
ever sat/passed the National Investigators Exam (NIE); completed an
Initial Crime Investigators Development Programme (ICIDP); PIP
Level 2 Portfolio; or otherwise be entitled to be referred to as
having attained the rank of Detective Constable without use of the
word ‘Temporary’ or ‘Acting’. (‘T.D.C. or A.D.C.’)
3. Could you please confirm whether all those interviews, actioned
by HOLMES 2, if carried out by Mr Mark Williams-Thomas, were
formally and specifically requested by his supervising officer.
4. Was there any discrepancy between the formally requested number
of interviews assigned to Mr Williams-Thomas and the number of
interviews actually carried out by Mr Williams-Thomas? If so, could
you please inform me how many of the interviewees had already been
interviewed by other police officers.
5. If the answer to 4. is affirmative, could you please inform me
whether you had reason to carry out any preliminary or informal
disciplinary investigations with regard to additional interviews
conducted with alleged sexual offenders by Mr Williams-Thomas.
6. Would Mr Williams-Thomas have been eligible for promotion within
the Detective squad, Temporary, Acting or otherwise, had he not
chosen to resign?
7. Following Mr Williams-Thomas’ arrest at Gatwick Airport Hotel
(not airport, so within your ‘area’) for alleged blackmail – a
matter I am aware has since been satisfactorily discharged by the
magistrates with NO stain on his character, could you please
confirm whether a separate investigation was carried out at the
same time by officers from the Surrey Police Force internal
investigation department, concerning other matters NOT connected
with the alleged Blackmail?
8. Can you please confirm whether any papers, notes, records,
photographs, digital electronic communications or equipment, which
identified names or action plans from HOLMES 2, were removed from
Mr Williams-Thomas’ home or person for inspection during such
9. Could you please tell me whether the outcome of such
investigation resulted in any report to The Child Exploitation and
Online Protection Centre (CEOP)?
10. Could you please tell me whether any subsequent internal report
was prepared by CEOP?
11. If the answer to 10. is affirmative, could I please have a copy
of such report?
12. Could you please give me copies of any advice subsequently
issued by CEOPS to the Portuguese Police in respect of Mr
Williams-Thomas’ presence in Portugal on behalf of any British
13. Could you please give me copies of any such advice issued by
CEOPS to any British Police Force in respect of official press
conferences open to accredited British reporters.
14. Could you please tell me whether you have been required to
furnish any information concerning Mr Williams-Thomas activities
whilst a serving Police Officer within your force to the
investigating officers concerned with the charges laid against Mr
Max Clifford under Operation Yewtree.
14. Could you please advise me of the contents of any communication
you have had with the Portuguese authorities specifically
referencing Mr Williams-Thomas between July 1st 2013 and August
I would prefer to receive this information electronically.
If the decision is made to withhold some of this information using
exemptions in the Data Protection Act, please inform me of that
fact and cite the exemptions used.
I would be grateful if you could confirm in writing by e-mail that
you have received this request and I look forward to hearing from
you within the 20-working day period.
To be continued…..