Response to David Rose & Rosie Waterhouse article

Friday, 09 November 2018

Set out in the below link is a detailed analysis, with evidence, that proves that nearly all of what David Rose and Rosie Waterhouse have written is either inaccurate or untrue and is a deliberate personal attack, set out in a manner to be damaging Mr Williams-Thomas’s reputation.

It is clear that David Rose and Rosie Waterhouse have an agenda to undermine child abuse complainants and David Rose posts or write in what comes across as supporting convicted child sex offenders, like Max Clifford, Rolf Harris and Jonathan King.

Journalist David Rose is far from a credible and respected journalist, he wrote an article in The Mail on Sunday in 2016 , which led to Associated Newspapers (The parent company of the Mail on Sunday and Mail Online) agreeing to pay substantial damages for the story that Rose wrote which was a devastating attack on the professional reputation of a leading QC. Associates Newspapers recognising that all of the accusations and claims that Rose wrote and MoS published were not true.

Libel finding against Rose and Mail on Sunday

One example of Mr Williams-Thomas's praise came from MP Tim Loughton in his statement to Parliament.

Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con):The extraordinary turn of events started to unravel almost a year ago when the media heralded a modest but game-changing ITV documentary—produced by Mark Williams-Thomas, to whom I pay tribute for what he has set in motion as a result—which first tentatively suggested that Jimmy Savile had abused teenage girls as young as 13. It seemed incredible that the semi-beatified, spangly shell-suited former Bevin boy, “Top of the Pops” doyen, children’s TV icon and multi-charity philanthropist had so successfully hidden his alter ego as a serious sexual predator, and a pretty prolific and grubby one at that. The rest, of course, is history. The initial Guardian headline about some 10 female victims having come forward was one of its more glaring underestimates. The number of victims was then upgraded to some 300, some of them possibly as young as nine years old, and the figure is now in excess of 600. The ramifications for the BBC, for the rest of the establishment and for the public profile of child abuse, however, have been huge. It is worth briefly reviewing what has come to light over the past year.


Response to Mail On Sunday article