In my day job when I expose a stockmarket fraud and I have exposed hundreds of them with the first such takedown in 1992, some folks say well done and some even thank me for warning them and so saving them money. But there are always some who bat for the fraudsters and insist that it is my hurty words that have taken down a “Great British Company” or Neil Woodford . Some folks even go the extent of hiring paid goons to threaten, menace and harass me to shut me up, as I showed here the other day. There are similarities with my work exposing historic sexual and physical abuse at my alma mater, Warwick School.
Most folks think it is a good thing that 14 years after I started campaigning that Warwick now accepts that boys were physically and sexually abused. One, already convicted for offences elsewhere, nonce Paul Stainsby is in Warwick Crown Court today where he must enter a please on 14 charges relating to his time at Warwick. Finally, after years of denying that it had a problem Warwick has now written to all OWS about Stainsby admitting that there were problems.
It has also apologized to victims of the sadistic bastard Geoffrey Eve, including me, who were physically abused. It now has a proper safeguarding procedure in place After years of denials and cover ups we are making progress. In my view it still needs to make a wider admission that Stainsby was not the only perp on its payroll. I have named others and there clearly was an institutional problem of both abuse and cover up. Only when Warwick accepts this and reaches out will more victims come forward, will more guilty men who are still alive be brought to justice and will ALL the victims get closure.
By naming perverts and indeed doorstepping one I have managed to get more victims – including of Stainsby – to come forward. But some former teachers and OWs, Old Warwickians, think I have got it wrong and have been at best cold or at worst hostile in how they have responded. I got an email this week from a chap who left Warwick some 20 years ago.
“This is not going to be your usual e-mail of prior pupils contacting you. I am asking you if it is actually right, morally or legally (and I have no idea of those grounds) to write articles outright accusing previous teachers (many/most of whom are dead and now can’t defend themselves against your allegations) of being paedophiles.
To set a little context, though I don’t want to get dragged into anything specifically, some of the teachers you mention in your articles have had a huge positive influence on my life, not only academically but as decent people. I can say the same for Warwick School.
The first thing that comes up when people Google some of their names are your articles with completely unfounded (unproven for sure) allegations and surely that is just not fair (what if someone writes an article like that about you or me when we’re no longer around?).
I am obviously on the side of the law should the law be required but the internet and putting out articles calling people guilty from the outset seems to be ungoverned.
You obviously didn’t have a positive time at the school and that is fair enough. I have friends I was there with who felt the same in that the style of teaching and discipline didn’t work for them but when I speak to them now about it, they have a balanced approach where they can understand that it wasn’t for them, but it did work well for others (myself included).
I look forward to your reply and I’m not trying to change how you feel, as that will never happen, but I just wanted to put across my worries about how you are writing about people and provide a balanced view from someone who had a positive time at Warwick School.”
Ends
We have corresponded since. My correspondent does not understand libel laws. You cannot libel the dead but I have applied the same standards in exposing dead perverts like Alan Wilkins, David Stuke or David Nichols as I applied to Charles Watmough who is alive and who I did doorstep.
The idea that I’d print “completely unfounded” allegations is nonsense. There are a number of teachers where I have received one allegation of misconduct. Most of them are dead so I could print but I refuse to do so as while I am minded to believe folks who claim to be victims one person on his own is not enough. I have only ever named offenders at Warwick when I have at least three credible and distinct sources.
I would not be doing this at all had Warwick, where – on balance I had a good time - acted responsibly when the offences happened and believed victims whose parents complained and not the perps. And I would not have had to start writing from 2011 had Warwick admitted early on that it had historic problems and reached out in a sympathetic way to all OWs. But it did not. It actually denied in a letter to OWs that there was a problem with sex abuse when its own records would have shown parents complaining and when the Police were, as Warwick knew, conducting investigations.
Most folks think it is a good thing that 14 years after I started campaigning that Warwick now accepts that boys were physically and sexually abused. One, already convicted for offences elsewhere, nonce Paul Stainsby is in Warwick Crown Court today where he must enter a please on 14 charges relating to his time at Warwick. Finally, after years of denying that it had a problem Warwick has now written to all OWS about Stainsby admitting that there were problems.
It has also apologized to victims of the sadistic bastard Geoffrey Eve, including me, who were physically abused. It now has a proper safeguarding procedure in place After years of denials and cover ups we are making progress. In my view it still needs to make a wider admission that Stainsby was not the only perp on its payroll. I have named others and there clearly was an institutional problem of both abuse and cover up. Only when Warwick accepts this and reaches out will more victims come forward, will more guilty men who are still alive be brought to justice and will ALL the victims get closure.
By naming perverts and indeed doorstepping one I have managed to get more victims – including of Stainsby – to come forward. But some former teachers and OWs, Old Warwickians, think I have got it wrong and have been at best cold or at worst hostile in how they have responded. I got an email this week from a chap who left Warwick some 20 years ago.
“This is not going to be your usual e-mail of prior pupils contacting you. I am asking you if it is actually right, morally or legally (and I have no idea of those grounds) to write articles outright accusing previous teachers (many/most of whom are dead and now can’t defend themselves against your allegations) of being paedophiles.
To set a little context, though I don’t want to get dragged into anything specifically, some of the teachers you mention in your articles have had a huge positive influence on my life, not only academically but as decent people. I can say the same for Warwick School.
The first thing that comes up when people Google some of their names are your articles with completely unfounded (unproven for sure) allegations and surely that is just not fair (what if someone writes an article like that about you or me when we’re no longer around?).
I am obviously on the side of the law should the law be required but the internet and putting out articles calling people guilty from the outset seems to be ungoverned.
You obviously didn’t have a positive time at the school and that is fair enough. I have friends I was there with who felt the same in that the style of teaching and discipline didn’t work for them but when I speak to them now about it, they have a balanced approach where they can understand that it wasn’t for them, but it did work well for others (myself included).
I look forward to your reply and I’m not trying to change how you feel, as that will never happen, but I just wanted to put across my worries about how you are writing about people and provide a balanced view from someone who had a positive time at Warwick School.”
Ends
We have corresponded since. My correspondent does not understand libel laws. You cannot libel the dead but I have applied the same standards in exposing dead perverts like Alan Wilkins, David Stuke or David Nichols as I applied to Charles Watmough who is alive and who I did doorstep.
The idea that I’d print “completely unfounded” allegations is nonsense. There are a number of teachers where I have received one allegation of misconduct. Most of them are dead so I could print but I refuse to do so as while I am minded to believe folks who claim to be victims one person on his own is not enough. I have only ever named offenders at Warwick when I have at least three credible and distinct sources.
I would not be doing this at all had Warwick, where – on balance I had a good time - acted responsibly when the offences happened and believed victims whose parents complained and not the perps. And I would not have had to start writing from 2011 had Warwick admitted early on that it had historic problems and reached out in a sympathetic way to all OWs. But it did not. It actually denied in a letter to OWs that there was a problem with sex abuse when its own records would have shown parents complaining and when the Police were, as Warwick knew, conducting investigations.
The failure of Warwick to ‘fess up means that this small website, which is not my day job, has been the only voice for dozens of victims of various forms of abuse. In naming still living perps I have had to run a legal risk. In my judgement and that of my lawyers a peadophile knowing that I had a number of victim statements in my pocket would be mad to sue me for libel as a) he would lose and b) the case would almost certainly see more victims come forward so making a Police investigation more likely. But there is always a risk and when I had enough evidence against a perp I published.
I have stated repeatedly that I’d love to stop writing about this subject. But I can only do that when Warwick really reaches out not just with mailings to the jockstrap smelling rugger hearties on the OW mailing list but via local and regional press adverts and social media, to say there was a big problem and that victims should come forward as they are not alone.
Until then I shall continue with responsible, multi sourced journalism. I tried to explain to my correspondent that I feel conflict when writing about men like Stuke and Nichols. I really enjoyed being taught by them and thought they were good men. The trouble is that even the most prolific of abusers at a school will only damage a small portion of kids with abuse. So most of us can have happy memories and a high regard for such men. But they can still be monsters. And it is 2026. We should be prepared to listen to one victim. But when there are multiple victims you just cannot ignore their testimony.
These chaps have been largely failed by the Police and failed by Warwick. What should we do? Ignore them and just forget about it all? Let those with happy memories carry on. But give no voice to grown men now in their 40s. 50s. 60s who break down in tears as they recall what went on? One of those who claimed Stainsby abused him killed himself before the case could come to trial. I know he had multiple problems but the timing of his death links it to Stainsby
I am on the side of the victims here and make no apologies for my 14 years of responsible work on this matter. Just as I shall never apologise for calling out stockmarket fraud.Thus is not a story about me, other than Eve’s crimes, and my memories oif Warwick, the story here is about forgotten victims.
I am on the side of the victims here and make no apologies for my 14 years of responsible work on this matter. Just as I shall never apologise for calling out stockmarket fraud.Thus is not a story about me, other than Eve’s crimes, and my memories oif Warwick, the story here is about forgotten victims.