Talk:Elm Guest House hoax

Heavy on allegation, light on outcome

I note that the Operation Midland and homicide allegations section contains over 1000 words detailing the allegations, and only a single sentence ("On 21 March 2016, the Metropolitan Police confirmed that Operation Midland had been closed without any charges being brought"), right at the bottom of the section, on the cessation of the inquiry. It also fails to mention last year's Panorama investigation and subsequent exposure of the "witness" as a fantasist. I don't doubt that this sensationalist, allegation-heavy POV runs throughout the article. Keri (talk) 10:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I quite agree: it all now looks rather unbalanced. -- Alarics (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. There was indeed a lot of hype, which is detailed in great length here, but much of it ended up being unfounded. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, we'll need to summarize the allegations better.LM2000 (talk) 22:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm in agreement as well. It was a mess. I've amended it inline with your suggestions. Gareth E. Kegg (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Should we make clear in the first paragraph that the allegations turned out to be unfounded? -- Alarics (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The whole page still needs major revision; as it stands, it's just a list of allegations, almost all of which have proved unfounded. What actually happened in Elm Guest House? A reader could be forgiven for thinking that "something" did, but nothing has come to light. Even the claims that Cyril Smith visited have been dismissed as probably not genuine in the last couple of years. The article is titled "Elm Guest House child abuse scandal" but it appears that at least 3 of those words are superfluous. Keri (talk) 19:34, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I think Gareth E. Kegg did a good job of updating the article. Although perhaps the article could be retitled "Elm Guest House child abuse allegations" rather than "scandal". It is true that no politician has ever been convicted of anything at Elm Guest House, but two other men were arrested in connection with the Elm Guest House investigation. One of them was jailed and the other one died before the case came to court. Former Catholic priest Tony McSweeney was jailed for abusing boys and John Stingemore died before his court case was due. Would you like this to be made clearer in the lead section Keri? In the lead it is stated that in March 2016 Operation Midland had been closed without any charges being brought. But the Independent Police Complaints Commission is also investigating claims that the Met Police had suppressed evidence of child sexual abuse and prevented the investigation of some allegations between 1970 and 2005, because of the alleged involvement of police officers and MPs.

Certainly nobody is claiming in the article that all the allegations are true. But this was nevertheless a major police investigation, which was described by Commander Peter Spindler, head of the Met Police's specialist crime investigations unit as a "complex multi-agency investigation". There's currently a different lengthy WP article on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations at this link: Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, with details of all the allegations by various different women listed. Again, nothing has ever been proven with regard to Trump assaulting women. But most readers, I feel, are intelligent enough to know the difference between allegations and what has actually been proven. The TV programme Panorama: The VIP Paedophile Ring: What's the Truth? broadcast in October 2015 is mentioned twice in this Elm Guest House article, both in the "2015 allegations" section and later in the "Operation Midland and homicide allegations" section. Gareth E. Kegg has updated the article with mention of the apology that Bernard Hogan-Howe gave to Lord Bramall and the public comments from Harvey Proctor, who called on Hogan-Howe to resign and stated that Operation Midland "...has had a disastrous affect on genuine complaints of child sexual abuse, both present and historical. I think it has been incredibly counterproductive."

So I would disagree that this article is still very one-sided. As well as the allegations being reported and the stated fact that Operation Midland was closed without any charges being brought, the criticism of the police investigation and the point of view from Harvey Proctor that Operation Midland has had "a disastrous affect on genuine complaints of child sexual abuse" is given. But perhaps there could be a further slight adjustment of the lead section to state that apart from the former Catholic priest Tony McSweeney being jailed in connection with the Elm Guest House investigation, no "prominent individual" has ever been convicted of activities at Elm Guest House. And also a sentence in the lead section to mention some of the strong criticisms made by people of the Operation Midland investigation. If that was made clearer in the lead section would you feel more comfortable with this article Keri? Regards, Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 06:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

McSweeney and Stingemore committed their offences at Grafton Close; no links were established during the various investigations between the children's home and the guesthouse. Panorama receives a brief mention in "2015 allegations" but is limited to a mere 3 sentences despite debunking most of the allegations. The second mention was added only after I started raising concerns here. Chris Fay is likewise barely mentioned, despite being the convicted fraudster at the centre of the first allegations and knowing his list was false. What other articles might say ("Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations") is neither here nor there: just because "other stuff exists" doesn't make this nor that article correct in their approach. Claiming that this article isn't "one-sided" when it is some 6,400 words long and contains only a handful of sentences clarifying that the rest is largely a combination of fantasy, disproved allegations and conspiracy theory takes some chutzpah. Keri (talk) 09:37, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

[outdent]The issues with this article haven't gone away just because nobody wants to talk about them. I hope you're braced for some brutal copy editing: Dodd, Vikram; Taylor, Matthew (8 November 2016). "Operation Midland riddled with police errors, report finds". The Guardian. Keri (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I broadly agree with Keri and I have made a start by adding slightly to the first couple of paragraphs. This meets my point that it needs to be made clear right at the beginning of the article the the allegations were all a malicious fantasy. However, much remains to be improved in the rest of the article. -- Alarics (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. One of the problems is that the article is essentially a Frankenstein at best, a chimera at worst. Nothing particularly scandalous by today's standards has been proven to have taken place there. The article goes to great lengths to link other police inquiries and operations, but they are unconnected. The myth around Elm Guest House grew from a single line in - I think it was the News of the World's - report of a raid there in the 70s. It mentioned a young boy was found on the premises. He was actually the son of the owners, and was in their separate living quarters. The newspaper article omitted that detail, and the hare has been running ever since. This article needs to screw down on the known/proven facts about Elm Guest House, and lose the tin foil hat, or instead be merged into an umbrella article which does legitimately group together all of these historic abuse inquiries. As I mentioned above, McSweeney and Stingemore, for example, had no links to Elm Guest House. Keri (talk) 15:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It is wrong to say that the allegations surrounding Elm Guest House have been shown to be unfounded. Operation Midland (focusing on Dolphin Square) collapsed but Operation Athabasca (focusing more on EGH) is still ongoing, as far as I can make out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.253.10.172 (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

See The Guardian: "Zac Goldsmith urged to withdraw paedophile ring allegations". After the initial allegations proved unfounded, the fishing expedition was passed on to Athabasca, which has yet to find anything else and "is petering out". Keri (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

... according to unnamed "sources". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.253.10.172 (talk) 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Much like the allegations, which didn't pan out either... Keri (talk) 22:00, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Isn't that an issue with police and law rather than evidence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.180.7.217 (talk) 00:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 16 February 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved to Elm Guest House claims and controversy. There is a sense that neither the current title or the proposed title are great, but that the proposed title is better and would be an improvement on the current situation.(non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

---

Elm Guest House child abuse scandal → Elm Guest House claims and controversy – What scandal?! This is a controversy at best, a hoax and a case of mass hysteria at worst! Even the title in its present form is itself arguably libellous towards Field Marshal Lord Bramall and Harvey Proctor, and quite possibly actually actionable! We have to take by inference Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe's apology [1] as Commissioner of the Met Police as an admission and acceptance of the whole story being false by the Commissioner and the Met Police; and honestly, who are we, us eminent experts here to say that the Met are wrong on this?! As things currently stand (now), there were no child abuse in Elm Guest House by this alleged, supposed or fictitious "Tory Thatcherite Freemason (insert Jewish or Zionist or Jewish Zionist) Westminster VIP Paedophile wing" headed by Sir Edward Heath as "Grand Master", end of story, period, or full stop! (and can we possibly have some mass WP:RevDel page purge as well please I would perhaps suggest, thank you!) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 14:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

• This is a serious proposal that needs careful consideration - preferably without the use of bold text, underlining, and exclamation marks. It does not help the process if you attempt to make unilateral and major changes to the article text without seeking prior agreement here. Please argue the case for changes to the article, that other editors can then consider. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support per WP:TITLE. The current title does indeed appear to libel living people and bear little or no relation to the actual outcome. The lead of the article also fails to give a concise summary of the sourced facts in the article. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment: Oppose move. "A scandal can be broadly defined as an accusation or accusations that receive wide exposure." The accusations do not have to be true for the word "scandal" to be used - they have to be widely publicised and discussed, which the ones in this article have been, in the past. I don't believe that using the word "scandal" implies that the allegations had any truth to them, or were libellous. But, I'm all in favour of making it absolutely clear, in the article text, where past claims have been discredited. Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:55, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

  That's Wikipedia's definition of "scandal". The Cambridge defines it as "(An action or event that causes) a public feeling of shock and strong moral disapproval", the Oxford as "An action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage", Collins' as "A scandal is a situation or event that is thought to be shocking and immoral and that everyone knows about", and Macmillan as "A situation in which important people behave in a dishonest or immoral way that shocks people". The general meaning is that an "action" or "event" has taken place. Keri (t · c) 16:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

For the avoidance of any doubt, I should make clear that I'm entirely comfortable with reshaping this article, clarifying it, and removing any overlap with other articles. If the consensus is that the article title should be changed, I'm unlikely to pursue my objection, but what needs to be decided first is the overall content and shape of the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support As I have said above, this article is "a Frankenstein at best, a chimera at worst." It is a confused tangle of multiple historic abuse inquiries and allegations, most of which have nothing to do with Elm Guest House. And to date there is nothing to substantiate the allegations about goings on inside the guest house, and much that discredits those allegations. Keri (t · c) 16:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment I've been asked to look at this, and the article has become a mess. It is unclear about what the scandal or controversy is, and is lumping together various police investigations and allegations, some of which are not directly related to the Elm Guest House. There is a need for a serious cleanup here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:41, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
• Comment There is a very good piece in Private Eye 1437 about the allegations against Edward Heath.[2] Apparently Wiltshire Police turned up at the Eye in January 2017 looking for evidence to support these allegations. Heath is lucky that he is now dead, because it would be extremely time wasting for the police to be turning up on his doorstep with allegations which look like they have been taken straight from David Icke's website.[3] Was Edward Heath a rather dud Prime Minister? Perhaps. Was he "a monumental paedophile and a child sacrificing satanist" as Icke claims? Hmm. Nevertheless, these allegations have become widespread on the Internet and Wiltshire Police are investigating them. As we know, some people are not fans of Britain's membership of the EU and voted for Brexit. One of the consequences of this has been a string of wild allegations against Heath, who took Britain into the Common Market in 1972. This is reminiscent of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory which involves similar wild allegations. The problem with this article is that it has become too fuzzy and loosely focused. What is it actually about? It may well be relevant to look at why certain allegations widely deemed to be fanciful have received the attention of PC Plod, who famously decided that Nick's allegations in Operation Midland were "credible and true" despite being unable to produce any evidence to support them and subsequently admitting that this had been a mistake.[4] However, this article is unclear about what the topics involved are and needs to be much more tightly focused.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I fully agree. Apart from anything else, this article seems to cover some of the same ground as Westminster paedophile dossier. Would it help to start by merging the two articles together? -- Alarics (talk) 14:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

• Comment: Several months ago I put forward the idea on the talk page that perhaps the title of the article could be renamed Elm Guest House child abuse allegations rather than "scandal". Or if not "allegations" then I don't have any specific objections to "claims and controversy" instead. The lead section does state that the list of alleged visitors to the Guest House had been produced by convicted fraudster Chris Fay and never verified or corroborated by any other source, but I accept that the main body of the article could also be tidied up further to make it clear that Operation Midland had been closed without any charges being brought. But I would oppose large chunks of the article being deleted. I think it is right and proper that the allegations are reported along with the outcome of the police investigation. People may well think that the allegations have been widely discredited, but it continues to be a controversy because the Independent Police Complaints Commission is still investigating claims of misconduct against Met Police officers in relation to the allegations. With regard to Ian's suggestion that people who are anti-EU made false allegations against Edward Heath, perhaps by the same token it could be suggested that some accusers with more liberal political persuasions may have made false allegations against those with right-wing views on immigration and Europe like Enoch Powell and Harvey Proctor and people who don't like a certain pop star's music may have made false allegations for reasons of antipathy as well. Unfortunately this is the world we live in. Kind Tennis Fan (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a WP:COATRACK article: an article "that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely. This may be because an article writer has given more text to the background of their topic rather than the topic itself. It also may have been edited to make a point about one or more tangential subjects. The nominal subject is treated as if it were an empty coat-rack and is obscured by the "coats". The existence of a "hook" in a given article is not a good reason to "hang" irrelevant, undue or biased material there... A coatrack article fails to give a truthful impression of the subject. In the extreme case, the nominal subject gets hidden behind the sheer volume of the bias subject(s). Thus the article, although superficially true, leaves the reader with a thoroughly incorrect understanding of the nominal subject." Keri (t · c) 10:58, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Not sure I like the proposed title that much, but it's factually better than the current title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The state of the article has improved considerably in recent months but is still a bit of a maze to wander through. Much of the allegations were unfounded and I do think that's largely addressed now though. Like Necrothesp, I'm not enthusiastic about this title but it's an improvement.LM2000 (talk) 23:39, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
• Support The only scandal was that people believed rumour and innuendo without demanding proof. Kiltpin (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Porridge

Seriously, this is like trying to swim in porridge. There seems to be a powerful strand of recalcitrance among some editors to accept that the allegations have proven false and to actually deal with the multiple problems with this article. Quite simply, the article should tell a reader:

• What is Elm Guest House (EGH)?
• Where is EGH?
• What is alleged to have happened specifically at EGH?
• Who alleged it?
• What inquiries into these specific allegations took place?
• What was the outcome of these inquiries?

Everything else is smoke and mirrors. Keri (t · c) 11:26, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree totally with the above. Kiltpin (talk) 12:45, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

The first two questions are answered in the first sentence. The rest is somewhat answered, but the real problem with this article is that providing specific answers would be blatantly libellous, hence it consists mostly of waffle and innuendo. There's a pretty strong smell of 'throw everything against the wall and see what sticks' about the whole thing. It should probably be torn down and started again from scratch, but I doubt anyone knows the whole story well enough to do so. Robofish (talk) 23:14, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

• I've tried to reshuffle the "2015 allegations" and "2014 allegations" into proper sections to make this easier to navigate. It's still a mess, but it's less of a mess. I've also trimmed detailed unfounded accusations. At this point we can be WP:BOLD and trim the article to where it needs to be.LM2000 (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition, the word 'hoax' is completely inappropriate as it is suggestive of a prank or someone playing word-games, whereas this is too serious a egregious a crime to dismiss as a 'hoax', therefore, the word 'hoax' has been included as a nonce-word (used temporarily for a particular occasion) as a gross cover-up. The lack of cats in the area is also suspicious... DCN

Operation Midland

I have extracted material from this article to a new article Operation Midland, which was in fact quite separate in its remit from Elm House. I have also tried to sort out the article so that it is sequential and does not contain irrelevant material. Where appropriate I have moved material to other relevant articles. Smerus (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Midland is independently notable and deserves its own article but I restored a brief mention here and provided sources that establish a connection to this subject. I've taken an ax to a good portion of other parts of the article. It seems that individual allegations were added in great detail while newspapers were still eating this up. WP:NOTNEWS applies. I recall a previous discussion where editors had trouble finding out what this article was about due to so much intricate detail to allegations that ultimately were never verified, I hope we're closer to clearing that up now.LM2000 (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2017 (UTC)