First charges in Richmond paedophile ring scandal

Two people were charged last night by the Met Police after authorisation by the Crown Prosecution Service in the Operation Fernbridge investigation.

John Stingemore,now 71 and the former deputy manager of Grafton Close children’s home was charged with eight counts of indecent assault, one charge of conspiracy with others unknown to commit buggery and two charges of taking indecent images of a child .

Father Tony McSweeney, aged 66,then a trainee Roman Catholic priest was charged with three counts of indecent assault, three counts of making indecent images of children,one charge of taking an indecent image of a child and a charge of possessing indecent images of children.

An updated report is on the Exaro News website.

The assaults involve seven children aged between nine and fifteen in the 1970s and 1980s. Both accused will appear before Westminster magistrates court in September.

Police are continuing their investigation into Elm Guest House,Barnes where it is alleged that boys were sexually assaulted by VIPs. The manager of the guest house, Harry Kasir, was recently arrested by the Met police, for having indecent images of children on his computer.

For legal reasons it is not possible to make any further comment because of the pending trial – a point made by the CPS in a blog statement today.

However as Richmond Council are not on trial I think a number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat councillors and former councillors in that borough have a lot of questions to answer .They all repeatedly denied to me that they knew anything about  any child sexual abuse in that borough. Without my original source none of this would have been reinvestigated by the police.

9 thoughts on “First charges in Richmond paedophile ring scandal

  1. Pingback: First charges in Richmond paedophile ring scandal « Alternative News Network

  2. Re the Elm ‘names’. has anybody considered the obvious? That ‘names’ on a guest house register for gay cruising may not have been genuine given the understandable reticence at the time? And that ‘famous names’ are the handles of choice by people giving a fictitious identity? Just a thought.


    • margaret

      having seen some of the original entries in the Elm Guest House log the problem is the opposite. What happened was that people stayed there under assumed names to hide their identities with the exception of the undercover policemen. There is a commentary that translates the names into the famous ones. The other source is the victims themselves who recognised the people, especially Sir Cyril Smith, who would be difficult to confuse with anybody else. Some of the information is now sub judice because of the forthcoming trial.


    • I think you have to be careful about names on the Mary Moss guest list, I know a lot of people at NAYPIC are equally unhappy – but let us not forgot what MM did and did alone. Quite a few of the list are gay men going to the Elm for sex with other Gay men. The vast majority of the list is however paedophiles. What I cannot fathom out yet is why Dave Lee Travis who gets nicked and charged for sex etc with young women (and I am not making excuses for any such behaviour) when the evidence is from victims without forensics etc that conversley the named men who have been identified by the victims of the Elm also not been charged and put to trial like DLT Is it because Travis is not a mason and not a political figure manipulated by the intelligence services of UK and the RSA.
      P.S. There is now a picture of the fat man leaving #27. Some coppers do have a conscience and the saavy to have kept 35mm copies for themselves. 20/8/13


  3. From this am I to assume that none of the names on the ‘list’ can be assumed to be genuine other than police officers? Chris Fay says that he took down the names from the register. But your mention of ‘commentary translation’ – please explain what this was and when it took place – I mean as a concept – suggests that the list is some sort of decoded dossier. But I can’t see how it could then be names taken down by Chris Fay. For instance If Liberace signed in as Edgar J Hoover – or vice versa then – was it Liberace, E J H or neither? How do we know the true identity of a signee? I suppose signatures could be checked as an elementary precaution- but what then?

    I do recognise a Hedgerow name. Whether that was genuine or planted you may know. I’m sure you must be right about Cyril Smith – I’m sure he was a well known personality to the victims at the time even though he lived in Rochdale. I will ask the obvious – but not expect an answer as this would obviously be subjudice. When did they recognise him as Cyril Smith, on the record? I’m also slightly bemused that undercover officers would sign in under their own names Are these the police officers named on the list? Have their signatures been checked?


    • The names were more like Gladys or Fred. I know about the police officers because the first reaction of the Met’s Paedophile Unit was to check they weren’t among the people using the guest house for nefarious purposes. I can assure you the Met checked them out and confirmed they were working under cover in advance of the police raid on the premises.


  4. Seems very weird for undercover officers checking out Britain ‘s most powerful ‘ring’ HQ to sign in using their real names. And I still don’t understand the ‘commentary translation’ – don’t remember Gladys and Fred type names on the list – though this is of course common in the gay play culture – between friends. So I can accept that Gladys was Joe Bloggs – by how does that identify Joe Bloggs as Mr X? Curiouser and curiouser. As I understand it, the police were raiding a house of ill-repute and then there was some kind of massive cover-up But the only ‘hard’evidence for this appears to be the list of names on the register – which do not appear to be genuine for the most part. Still, loads of ‘cover-ups’ around that time – Nottingham, Leicester , Rochdale….seem to remember the term ‘passed round like play things ‘ cropping up – that was in the actual trials, not the cover-ups. Hedgerow was exactly contemporaneous with Nottingham on this. Funny that.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.