Subject: [batt_sal] Skullduggery?- You decide
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 20:04:02 -0000
I had intended to let sleeping dogs lie, but as this topic has
resurfaced I think I should say that it was me who told Hugh Madley's
HM) solicitors about Graham Wilmer's (GW) activity on this
noticeboard.  I hope that on reading my explanation you will
understand why I acted as I did.

I should start by saying that I am using a pseudonym. For reasons
entirely unconnected with the Madley/Wilmer affair I have used this
when posting here for the past four years.  If anybody (other than GW)
really needs to know my real identity I will be happy to reveal it
privately.

When I first read GW's allegations I was completely open-minded about
them.  To the best of my knowledge I have never met him.  Although I
overlapped with HM at Battersea, he did not teach me, I barely spoke
to him and have had no contact with him in the last 30+ years.  I had
no particular opinion about HM and certainly did not address the
subject in a haze of rose-coloured nostalgia.

As time went by however I began to form a low opinion of GW.  He was
clearly prepared to make attention-seeking claims without regard as to
whether they were true, as in his ridiculous claim (subsequently
retracted) about Charles Clarke at Post 1468 on 3 July 2004.  He also
responded to criticism in a totally inappropriate way, see his wish at
Post 1471 that I should die horribly. 

When I read here about the date of the trial, I realised that things
were getting serious, and that if convicted of buggery HM was at risk
of being sent to prison.  An elderly Ampleforth monk was recently
gaoled for offences which took place many years ago.  At that stage I
had no independent knowledge of what evidence was likely to be put
before the court.   It seemed possible that a jury might be asked to
decide between GW's allegations and HM's denials.  In such a scenario
it would be useful for them to have an indication of the character of
the two protagonists, particularly whether or not they were in the
habit of speaking the truth.

It suddenly struck me that I knew something about GW which just might
be relevant.  I decided that I had a duty to bring this information to
the attention of somebody who could decide whether this was the case
and if necessary to act on it.  Consequently I wrote to HM's
solicitors shortly before the trial (using my real name) suggesting
that they take a look at GW's contributions to this Board.   There
were a couple of new members joining the Group about this time and it
appears that this may be connected.   I made contact by asking
Guildford Crown Court to forward a letter.  Apart from a brief
conversation when the solicitor rang me to clarify something, I have
had no other dealings with the defence team.  Actually I don't think
my information had any influence on what happened in court, but still
feel I did the right thing. 

Being a nosy type of person and having some time to spare, I attended
Guildford Crown Court on 13th and 15th December.  To keep this post
from being excessively long I won't go into detail now about what I heard.

Having said all this, it does seem to be the case that GW was sexually
abused by HM when at school and he is entitled to sympathy for this
and also recognition of his determination in getting the matter before
a court so many years later.  I suppose HM can count himself lucky not
to have been prosecuted and placed on the now notorious List 99 at the
time.   I would however be very reluctant to take GW's word on the
details of what happened, either in 1967 or more recently.

In 1967 HM may have been the predator and GW the victim, but it seems
that the roles have since been reversed.   All in all if the two of
them were on fire in the street, I think I would piss on HM first.

This contribution saw the beginning of a lon-running series of messages posted by boys from Battersea who supported me, and others who supported Madley. Here are some of the more recent exchanges:

On 28/12/06 RH wrote:

Graham Wilmer's much-delayed book "Conspiracy of Faith" detailing
the sexual abuse he endured at Chertsey in the late 1960s and his
attempts to call both the original offender and the Salesian order
to account is due out in early January.

Generous and substantial excerpts, including legal transcripts, are
to be found on:- http://www.grahamwilmer.org.uk This link also provides a
splendid photo of what looks like an oil portrait of Fr O'Shea, whom
I knew at Surrey Lane as the chemistry master, but Wilmer knew as
the Headmaster at Chertsey.

Graham's book has been hanging fire since its original publication
date of July (if not earlier), postponed to October, then November.
It was going to be entitled "Snow Covered Rainbow", but now is to
be "Conspiracy on Faith". It is not being privately published,
either - but by uncontestably mainstream Lutterworth.

Excerpts are going to be published, I am informed, in January by The
Mail/Mail on Sunday. Do have a gander at the above link, then tell me
if you think this matter is 'off-topic', ha!


2/01/07 Paul Webber, using the name Bobbykeluk, wrote:

Let's assume for now that Judge Reid of Guildford Crown Court was
mistaken and that Graham Wilmer is a pretty straight kind of guy.

The following points strike me:

1) I don't see why Foley should be criticised at all. It's not clear
whether he had any say in the appointment of Madley to the staff at
Battersea or whether he had to go along with George Williams's plan.
Whatever the case, his attitude of "I know what happened and I'll be
watching you" seems pretty responsible. What else should he have done
- gone to the police? asked the Pope to arbitrate? written a circular
letter to parents "Please ensure your boys have tidy hair. By the way
I'm delighted to say that a pervert is joining our staff in September".

2) Does the evidence suggest that the SDBs prime concern was to hush
everything up and protect the abuser? Father Gaffney's original
reaction seems to have been to tell HM to shove off. It was only
later, after George Williams met HM, that they came up with the move
to Battersea.

In any case was it so bad to offer HM another chance? If an otherwise
satisfactory teacher had been caught with his hand in the till or even
hitting a boy too hard, we might well say that giving him a fresh
start elsewhere was an example of Christian charity in action. Are
sexual offences uniquely heinous? I only ask.

3) Where the SDBs do seem to be at fault was the apparent lack of
pastoral support offered to GW after the affair came to light. An
acceptable approach might have been to say "don't mention this to the
other boys but if you do want to talk to anyone about it Father X will
be there for you". If I'd been involved in anything comparable I
think I'd have been rather glad if the school had decided not to
involve my parents.

GW seems to suggest that O'Shea's refusal to let him return and resit
his O Levels was connected with the HM affair. He might be right. It
would be interesting though to know what the normal policy was at
Chertsey regarding boys in GW's academic position.

At Battersea I got the impression that boys in the "second year fifth"
were regarded as a problem, partly because of the space they took up
and partly because of the attitude of some of their number. I recall
a very decent and intelligent chap in my year who had lost the habit
of studying. I was rather prissily shocked to see him reading a
Dennis Wheatley novel during a free period a day before an exam. He
was equally idle when he repeated the 5th year and left with 3 O
levels, one in the 4th form and one each time in the 5th form.

I'm not suggesting GW was in this category, but it could be argued
that a cruel to be kind approach of kicking such boys out into the
world of work was not such a bad thing.

Discuss: Is the "friendly meeting" between GW and HM in 1969 fact or
fiction?

On 2/01.07 Peter Hogan wrote:

Given the bottom feelers, sadists and other inadequates at Battersea, would Foley have
noticed yet another deviant?


On 3/01/07 Graham Wilmer wrote:

I think it is time to unmask the miscreant who tried to derail my day
in court by writing to Madley's defence team, telling them that I was
not an honourable character.

His efforts were, in the end, fruitless, as both the CPS and Madley's
defence team dismissed him as a 'fool', but he did place himself on
the 'list' of those who still have to be dealt with for their work in
trying to protect the Salesian conspiracy.

He is Paul Webbewood. He left Battersea in 1970. Why he should want to
protect the Salesians is not yet clear. His motivation is still to be
uncovered, but uncover it I will.

2007 will be an interesting year!

Best wishes
Graham Wilmer


On 4/01/07 Paul Webbewood wrote (acknowledging his real name for the first time):

I hope anyone who's read your posts here over the past few years,
especially your threats, would conclude that you were not an
honourable character.

Possibly I am a fool by butting into somebody else's quarrel, but at
least I haven't pursued a vendetta against a sick man or been dubbed
a liar by a judge.

"but he did place himself on the 'list' of those who still have to be dealt with for their work
in trying to protect the Salesian conspiracy."

Another threat

"He is Paul Webbewood. He left Battersea in 1970."

Correct

"Why he should want to protect the Salesians is not yet clear. His motivation is still to
be uncovered, but uncover it I will."

I'll save you the trouble - it's revulsion against the bully and
liar you have shown yourself to be.

Best wishes

Paul


On 4/01/07 RH wrote:

 bobbykeluk <garyjenk@hotmail. com> wrote:

<SNIP>

>> Why he should want to
>> protect the Salesians is not yet clear. His
>> motivation is still to
>> be uncovered, but uncover it I will.

> I'll save you the trouble - it's revulsion against
> the bully and
> liar you have shown yourself to be.

This reason that you give I find unconvincingly
abstract in relation to the degree of concrete trouble
you went to.

People who merely feel revulsion tend to say things
like "Tut tut!"; "Isn't it awful?"; or, "What can you
do?" Then leave it at that.

The fact that you acted on your 'revulsion' -
contacting HM's lawyers, actually attending court -
does suggest a degree of involvement beyond that of a
bystander crying "Shame!"

So I wonder. Was HM back then such an influential
mentor of yours that you are dismayed and nonplussed
at the prospect of revising your opinion of him? Or
are you perhaps some Salesian Old Boy activist
volunteering your services on behalf of the Old School
for no reward other than a pat on the back at the next
OB annual dinner? These are the kinds of concrete
motivation that might be disclosed by a less
disingenuous answer than one that takes refuge in
abstractions.

You say GW is a liar. I could remark glibly that "all
men are liars", and leave it at that. Instead, I
shall add that GW considered the lies he told HM as
constituting a perfectly legitimate ruse to extract
certain admissions. The fact that the judge at
Guildford observed that GW's ruse would not be
considered evidentially kosher, while valid
juristically, carries no ethical weight that I can
discern.

You say GW is a bully. The only evidence I can see
for that is that he sometimes feels justified in
taking a tone of invective towards HM, and of course
your good self.

Happy New Year.
RH


On 5/01/07 Paul Webbewood wrote:

Here is the text of my letter:

"2 December 2005
Dear Sirs

Hubert Madley and Graham Wilmer

I have asked Guildford Crown Court to forward this letter to you.

I understand that Mr Madley is due to stand trial there shortly as a
result of allegations made by Mr Wilmer. If you have not already done
so, you may want to peruse an Internet Yahoo Group about Salesian
College Battersea. Mr Wilmer has posted messages to this group using
the pseudonym of Peter Andrews.

Do an internet search under "Yahoo Groups". When you reach the home
page, type in "Salesian College Battersea" in the "find a group" box.
Alternatively go straight to http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/batt_ sal/
(nb underscore after"batt") . You will have to become a member to
read the messages but I think this will be straightforward.

I have no idea whether or not Mr Wilmer's allegations about Mr Madley
are true, but some of his postings may be relevant to his credibility
as a witness. In posts 1468 et seq from July 2004 he makes a wild
claim based on an erroneous factual base. He was rather unpleasant
when challenged about this but eventually had to back down. In posts
1398 et seq from June 2004 he displays low cunning by asking to be
told the name of a former Headmaster and then a few days later
bandying about this name to give authenticity to another of his claims."

DC Hobbs said
> that you obviously had some kind of 'vendetta' against me; either
that or you had some connection with Madley. Certainly, neither the
Judge,nor the CPS, nor the Police, nor even Madley's defence barrister
said
> that I had a 'vendetta' against Madley.

See my Post No 2235 of 16th Feb 2006 for the background as to why I wrote.

> As you were in court on the day, perhaps you would let those in this
> group who were not, know what I actually said about the tape
> recordings when I was cross examined.
> < . . . >

I was only in court on 13th & 15th December 2005. I didn't hear you
give evidence at all.

Actually while I have no regrets at all about my letter to HM's
solicitors, rather the opposite, I do feel foolish at having got so
involved as to attend court.

Robert - I think "level of invective" is an excessively mild
description of Graham's posts 1471 of 4th June 2004 and 2163 of 29th
December 2005. I recall you deciding to restrict his right of access
to the board after the latter post. I last attended an Old Boys'
meal in 1971.

Best wishes

Paul