Wednesday, March 27, 2013











It was David Rose who started the whole Coconut business. Even in the piece below he has no words of comfort for the victims of horrific abuse. Well you can have your say in the comments section below. I hope Mr Rose will come forward and explain the Jersey situation to us. Let us know the Jersey Politician that was leaking you doctored emails. I don't hide. I fight for Truth, Honesty and Integrity. 

Look at the headlines below written by Mr Rose for the Daily Mail concerning the Jersey Child Abuse Investigation. Why, when something needs trashing, concerning Child Abuse, do we get David Rose and the Mail on Sunday? Coincidence?I think not.

The Internet is changing the face of the game.  Information is being shared. People like Rose are finding it harder by the day to peddle their lies and half truths. 

This is about the Victims of Horrific Abuse

The 3 headiness below say it all for me Mr Rose


Rico Sorda

Part time Investigative Journalist - Citizen Blogger 



18th May 2008

15th November 2008

4th October 2009

MoS reporter is a secret paedophile in the pay of MI5! Just one of the lies peddled about me on the web

In this newspaper last week, I brazenly became a 'cheerleader for paedophiles'. Indeed, I attempted a 'cover-up' on behalf of Britain's paedophile elite. This should come as no surprise because for years I have been part of a 'wretched, toxic cancer' that affects all corners of the Government and the judiciary, and I have spent decades 'smearing abused children'.

But even that only hints at deeper truths about me. I am not a journalist at all. I am 'a former MI5 agent' who 'specialises in fixing tricky problems which are inconveniencing the more conservative parts of the Establishment – by using spin, disinformation and pure lies'.

In fact, even more worryingly, I do not exist at all. I am merely a cipher, a fictitious individual concocted by this newspaper in order to pump out propaganda.

Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose (pictured right) says he has always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort

Mail on Sunday reporter David Rose (pictured right) says he has always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort

Of course, dear reader, I must now make clear none of the above is true. All of it is libellous and highly defamatory. For an investigative journalist who works hard to expose hidden facts, it is also potentially very damaging.

But it is only a small sample of allegations about me posted on blogs and Twitter after the article I wrote in last week's Mail on Sunday with my colleague Bob Woffinden on the dubious source of the BBC's false claim that Lord McAlpine was a pedophile.

If you Google my name with the term 'Mail on Sunday', you will find such material in substantial quantities, recycled and spread by Facebook 'sharing' and retweeted thousands of times.
Like Lord McAlpine, who is suing those who used Twitter to spread the lie that he was an abuser, if I resorted to law I would have an unanswerable case. I'm put off by the fact that most bloggers and tweeters who spread this putrid rubbish cloak themselves with anonymity and the likelihood is they would not be able to pay me any damages.

Moreover, in my 31 years as a reporter, I've always believed that journalists should sue only as a last resort: in general, I believe, our libel laws are too restrictive and act as a brake on serious journalistic inquiry. But I'm getting close to suing, and the reason is simple. The idea that the internet is 'like the Wild West' has become a cliche. In practice, it means anyone can write whatever they like about anyone else and expect to get away with it.

The consequences for journalists in established print and broadcasting media for getting a serious accusation wrong are, as the BBC has just discovered, potentially catastrophic. Never mind damages: legal costs in libel cases can run into millions, a situation made far worse by the arrival of 'no win, no fee' lawyers who represent libel claimants without any payment up-front.

Lord McAlpine was falsely accused of child abuse on the internet
Lord McAlpine was falsely accused of child abuse on the internet

It is simply inconceivable that The Mail on Sunday's Editor or the lawyers who advise him would allow publication of an item that accused a living person of being a paedophile, or even a cheerleader for paedophiles, without the strongest possible evidence. He would regard it as essential to make sure the claim had been put to the individual, and his response was published.

The Press Complaints Commission has, in the wake of the phone-hacking scandal and the Leveson Inquiry, come to be portrayed as toothless and feeble. The reality is that any journalist who takes their work seriously will go to great lengths to avoid an adverse Commission finding. We know we may have to spend hours preparing and submitting documents to defend our work.

But on the internet no such sanctions apply. If, like me, you happen to be a reporter who reveals inconvenient truths, not just about false allegations of paedophilia but issues such as climate change, it's open season. I've always believed that if the media pack is headed in one direction, the real story may well lie in the other. Over the years, this principle has helped me land some memorable scoops. It has also made me some vicious enemies, and they now have a ready means of striking back.

It's interesting to note that some of the nastiest internet claims about me were first made on the website run by David Icke, who thinks the world is controlled by a 'brotherhood' elite descended from reptiles from the planet Draco.

Reasoned debate and careful evaluation of the facts do not belong in Twitterland. In their place are hatred, hyperbole, and demonstrably baseless personal attacks.

Does it matter? I used to think not. Surely, I mused, everyone knows you can't believe much of what  you read on the internet. But as the Arab Spring demonstrated, social media have become a powerful, all-pervasive force, capable of triggering far-reaching change.

At the same time, the derided 'mainstream' media are under huge commercial pressure, the product of recession and deeper technological shifts. There is a real risk that many bona fide news organisations that have the resources and will to invest in real reporting will ultimately cease to exist.
If so, what will fill the gap? Who will have time and money to dig out awkward facts? We hear a lot about 'citizen journalists'. Their emergence has, in some cases, been positive: the brutal attack by a police officer which killed Ian Tomlinson during the G20 protests would never have come to light without the bystander who filmed it on his mobile phone.
But the bloggers who called me a lying protector of paedophiles are citizen journalists too, while at least one supposedly 'respectable' news and comment website also published a highly misleading attack. Is this the new norm of debate?

Meanwhile, Lord Justice Leveson is about to produce his long-awaited report on newspaper ethics, amid leaks and warnings that he will recommend a range of new  press restrictions backed by legal statute. But not, it seems, for the internet, as The Mail on Sunday disclosed last week.
It is just possible that the BBC McAlpine fiasco and Twitter's role in it may make m'lud think again. But as things stand, he is apparently about to propose draconian curbs on those who struggle to investigate professionally, while giving a free pass to those who undermine their efforts with lies and slander.
This will have consequences. Some form of licensing for reporters and newspapers, ultimately controlled by the State, would amount to a profound setback to freedom of speech, of the kind that matters most – the freedom to champion unpopular causes and challenge established orthodoxies. Yet the digital detractors who play to the bloggers' gallery, casually spreading their own fabricated universe to anyone who wants to 'follow' them, would be free to continue as before.

This doesn't amount merely to a further coarsening of the tenor of public discourse, or the ultimate repudiation of the dictum 'facts are sacred, comment is free'. It means we are heading for a situation in which bogus claims that fit a certain view will simply take precedence over reality.
It's interesting to note that some of the nastiest internet claims about me were first made on the website run by David Icke, who thinks the world is controlled by a 'brotherhood' elite descended from reptiles from the planet Draco.
If you want to believe that, then you're free to believe what you like about me. But please allow me a riposte. The stuff put out by Icke and others isn't just vile – it's bonkers.

Read more:
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Dragoneye888 said...

Great work mate....I support your work..

Anonymous said...

Well then. Do you think someone with deep pockets will fund David Rose so he can scare up some libel cases? His self pity and straw man argument might be designed just to bait the masses, and to stifle free speech. The paedo-protectors must really hate the internet. They are certainly out in full battle mode.


rico sorda said...

Thank you John. Really appreciate your comment.


voiceforchildren said...


Coincidences and patterns are a regular feature when it comes to the reporting of people who stand accused of trashing Child Abuse investigations and Victims/Survivors and here's another.

David Rose in this latest tirade is sickeningly playing the victim and we don't need to cast our minds back that far to remember David Warcup playing the same CARD

Zoompad said...

I remember the day I wept at my computer crying "Jesus help me" and stumbled upon the stuff about Richard Gardner and Ralph Underwager.

I knew it was a key, and an answer to prayer, and kept posting what I had found on Mothers for Justice, and was astonished when people started to attack me for doing so.

That is when it all started to become clear what has been going on for me.

David Cameron needs to come clean about all of this, the worst thing he can do now is try to cover it up. its gone far beyond the stage of cover upability now.

I personally think David Cameron is innocent of all of this, and that he was duped in 2002. The worst thing he can do is assume that all this can be brushed under the rug.

There is no shame in admitting you were duped.

Anonymous said...

Well done Rico.

Elle, I think the last thing David Rose would do is actually sue his critics. This would require him to argue his case in court and take the witness stand under oath.

It's one thing peddling 'journalistic inexactitudes' in a newspaper article (see e.g. George Monbiot's demolition of his climate denial guff for details), it's an altogether more serious matter to do so in court. Oh, and some fairly ripe pre-trial disclosures would be required.

The pity and straw-man arguments are truly pathetic - the notion that he would sue and win but it isn't worth it is simply laughable.

Dr D payne said...

His voice is always there, doubting the victims, adding to their pain. now he wants us to feel sorry for him, or - come on - LIKE him? you can almost see the sneer while he writes about citizen journalists and internet bloggers. Out with the old.

Unknown said...

You are doing a great job. Please keep the information coming.

Anonymous said...

Okay David,If you can provide the scientific evidence that a piece of coconut was found and explain the numerous children's bones that you failed to mention (all scientifically proven)and prove that Lenny Harper was incompetent we might believe you. Oh,you can't can you ? You obviously
do not check your facts and you need to stop playing the victim, get your facts straight and maybe, just maybe you will gain respect as a serious, honest journalist.

Anonymous said...

Surely suing someone for libellous/defamatory comments isn't about getting financial compensation, it's about publicly clearing one's reputation?

All the very best to you Rico.

Anonymous said...

Excellent work Rico. The best strategy has always been to try and keep idiots like Rose talking. The more he does the clearer things become.

rico sorda said...

I sent the Daily Mail links to my work and why I'm raising the issues surrounding David Rose. They didn't bother publishing it.


Ex-Senator Stuart Syvret said...


Oh how very drole, David.

Did you see what he did then?

A bit of clever, clever "subliminal" spin by making reference to the nut-job David Icke - thus creating and fostering in the minds of MoS readers an "impression" that all citizen journalism involves a belief in shape-shifting space-alien lizards, and can thus be safely ignored.

But when David Rose attacks bloggers, perhaps it's me he's referring to?

I did make a mistake; I said he had been recruited by MI5.

In fact it was MI5 - and MI6.

Well, that's according to David Rose - so it must be true.

His cleverly written mea culpa article for New Statesman can be read here:

I say cleverly written - because it is framed as some kind of rigorous and necessary exposure of the obsolete and untenable manner in which Britain's security services manipulate the media. A person coming fresh to this issue might read the article, and initially think Rose was being a good, ethical journalist for exposing this stuff.

In fact - what we read is a confession of years of willing and enthusiastic churnalism on behalf of the British establishment and its secret-services - a role that - allegedly - ended only because MI5 and MI6 stopped contacting him. This is what Rose claims:

"Full disclosure: both agencies decided to stop speaking to me several years ago, in circumstances that at first I found infuriating. (Quite why MI6 cut me off, I never found out, but I have been told that MI5 objected to several interviews I carried out with Britons released from Guantanamo Bay who said that MI5 staff had been complicit in their treatment and interrogation while in US custody. It wasn't that this was untrue, but it was apparently regarded as "deeply unhelpful".)

Reporting on the illegal detention and torture of people is the kind of thing that any reasonable journalist ought to regard as a mundane day-to-day part of their job. But to read Rose here, you'd think he was bigging himself up for a Nobel Peace Prize.

The fact is, the state-controlled churnalism that David Rose engaged in for many years on behalf of the security forces actually strongly contributed to such illegal regimes a Guantanamo coming into existence in the first place.

So - what are we to make of the supposedly fearless - evidence-based - Super-Journalist David Rose - when he actively misleads Mail on Sunday readers by asserting that suggestions he was involved with MI5 are just "lies by bloggers" - when his own New Statesman article admits his connections?

Forgetful, no?

A regrettable lack of "precision" and absence of "full disclosure", no?

David Rose plainly regards MoS readers as cretins and fools - and regards the liberal intelligentsia who read Staggers as worthy of a little more frankness - and an more sophisticated spin.

Certainly, it is clear that Rose regards Mail readers with contempt; why else would he have foisted upon them the factually wrong, politically motivated and misleadingly omissive screeds of distortions he wrote concerning child-abuse in Jersey?


Anonymous said...


It would seem that you standing up for a sparing match with him is not what he wants, or what he wants to do.

Keep at it.

Anon said...

Well done.

David Rose helped get us into the Iraq War.

- Aangirfan

Anonymous said...

David Rose says:

"In fact, even more worryingly, I do not exist at all."

Is he really Matt Tapp?!!

Zoompad said...

Investigations under UCAFAA conference scrutiny
A retired deputy chief constable responsible for police training is to speak at the second annual conference of the United Campaign Against False Allegations of Abuse (UCAFAA).

Dr Tom Williamson is a psychologist who developed police interviewing techniques as a senior officer in the Metropolitan Police and later as the Deputy Chief Constable of Nottinghamshire. Since his retirement he has been made a senior research fellow at the Institute of Criminal Justice Studies in the University of Portsmouth and lectures internationally.

Dr Williamson will address the critical issue of witness interviewing and the search for truth at the conference, the overall theme of which will be the investigation of sexual abuse allegations.

The conference, to be held in London on Saturday 9th November, brings together falsely accused people, their relatives and supporters and concerned professionals under the banner of the justice network UCAFAA.

Speakers will include social care consultant and former senior social services manager Charles Pragnell; leading investigative journalist Bob Woffinden; GP, writer and broadcaster Dr Michael Fitzpatrick and the Earl Howe, deputy chair of the parliamentary all party group on abuse investigations.

Bob Woffinden has researched miscarriages of justice for many years and has recently focussed particularly on abuse allegations. Drawing on his experience, he gave evidence to the Home Office Select Committee inquiry into abuse allegations. Bob Woffinden and Richard Webster's investigation of the claims against the Newcastle nursery workers laid the foundations of the historic libel trial and he will discuss the case at the conference.

In a keynote speech, Earl Howe will speak on the first year of the All Party Group that has seen the explosion of parliamentary and media interest in the police trawl investigations and a questioning, by members of the senior judiciary, of the safety of retrospective abuse convictions.

Organiser George Williamson said: "The conference takes the awareness of false allegations to a new level. So much has happened in the year since our last conference that there couldn't be a better time to subject abuse investigations to critical scrutiny on a general level. There will be plenty of opportunity for discussion from the floor and the conference promises to be a landmark event."

For more information contact BFMS on 01225 868682 or George Williamson on 01132 550559. Tickets are available from AAFAA, PO Box 84, Leeds, LS5 3XZ. Fee £10 payable by cheque or PO to UCAFAA.

Anonymous said...

Seems to me Rico that now is the opportune time to resend your letter to the Mail newspaper,in reply to David Roses current article.

Anonymous said...

Zoompad, I can smell a rat with this conference already. They will dredge up a few of those cases where someone was mistaken about the identity of an abuser, or when an innocent person was wrongly accused, and it will be trumpeted daily in the mainstream media until it competes with the overwhelming number of legitimate cases of sexual abuse of children and institutionalized cover up.

The JEP staff must be waiting with excitement and impatience to quote from this conference.

Well meaning people who can be expected to be outraged at false abuse claims will become overly concerned that false accusations are commonplace, and must be aggressively discussed in proportions equal to the truly tragic abuse cases yet to be exposed.

It is like the subject of rape, people. Rape is devastating, tragically common and most rapists do not face justice. There are occasional cases of false rape allegations, a small minority to be sure, and they are extremely damaging to all of society, especially to the falsely accused and also to the real survivors of rape, who face painful scrutiny and suspicion. Because of this many or most rapes are never reported.

The challenges with prosecuting rape cases are magnified many times when victims are children.

I am increasingly uncomfortable seeing what appear to be orchestrated efforts from powerful people to tamp down the very urgent topic of institutionalized child abuse. Thanks to Rico, the pattern of hacks such as David Rose can be exposed to a wider audience of media consumers.

And Stuart, I think you are absolutely right in your description of the motives and dissembling by David Rose. I just wish we knew everything and everyone behind it.


Zoompad said...

Rape is when you tell someone that you dont want to have sex with them, and they go ahead and do it anyway.

When I was a child I didnt actually say no to being molested. I hated every second of what was happening to me, but I didnt scream or cry, until afterwards. I wanted to protect the person who was doing it to me, because I loved him, and didnt want him to get into trouble. I loved him even though he was hurting me, because he was my brother.

When I started locking myself into the bedroom, barricading the door so that I could scream and scream and let the poison out, that was the screams that I couldn't make at the time. My dad and mum didnt know what to do, so they called Social Services and they put me in a Place of Safety, that was being run by pimps.

Them calling me Lolita and ganging up on me, making it so that I would be in poverty all my life, no matter how hard I struggled and strived and worked, at one time I was too poor to afford to buy sanitary towels, which is too humiliating, not letting me help myself out of the poverty trap, its been bloody horrible. They have done even worse things to me than my brother did, yet they pretended to be caring for me.

Anonymous said...

And still the MOS has not updated that web page's comments. What have they got to hide? ..

The Beano is not the Rag

Anonymous said...

Why do you think David Rose is directing things at you? You are not mentioned in this Article and he goes on about Twitter mostly.

Ian Evans said...

The dissection of a criminal system PART 6

Anonymous said...

Another "victim", poor poor Anthony Farrington. Where is my tiny violin?

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Re Poor Anthony Farrington.

Anonymous said...

Re: Comment @November 21, 2012 8:39 AM,

The sock puppet David Rose of the J. Hari Wikipedia controversy is not the David Rose who has lied on behalf of MI5 about WMD, and lied on behalf of Big Oil about climate change, and done so much cruel damage to the lives of child abuse victims on behalf of unknown sponsors. He has, in my opinion, re-abused Steven Messham in a particularly cruel way. We should all be aware of who this very real David Rose is, as he is a very real danger to the cause of accepted journalistic ethics and to the voice of victims of the most verifiably savage child abuse.


Himself said...

Rico, I have passed you on to this fellow.

Peter Garsden is the Senior Partner of Abney Garsden McDonald Solicitors who run the largest dedicated department of specialised child abuse compensation solicitors in the UK ( He is also President of the Association of Child Abuse Lawyers.

Anonymous said...


Excellent post for #Paedobritain Day. The role played by David Rose in supporting abuse concealment is an essential part of the international cover-up of government-sponsored paedophilia, for their purposes of political blackmail and control of power. If enough people pay attention to who he really is and why he is trotted out for abuse-denial, his notoriety will work against him and against the powers that be, instead of against truth.


Anonymous said...

Are you not just showing a hatred of another view of it all here? The way this is written it comes across as if you have serious sour grapes about Rose's views. He is a reporter, if he thinks the inquiry was held badly then would you rather he covered that up? Come on make some sense.

Anonymous said...

Rose may not even care if the investigation was bad or good. It is not likely that he actually expresses strong personally held opinions in his more controversial articles. Rose is the infamous subject of many contemporary journalism courses because of professional ethics problems. He has been caught lying about evidence and he very publicly admitted to some professional shame over his fabrications about WMD in Iraq. He issued an apology of sorts for adhering to the M15 disinformation agenda in his WMD reporting. He is a "fixer," meaning he has knowingly written flawed news stories, and knowingly disregarded key evidence for the primary purpose of misinforming readers. This is done on behalf of powerful special interests. He has even testified in mainland courtrooms on behalf of dangerous convicted child rapists, to the stated dismay of various police investigators. His efforts regarding child abuse denial on behalf of paedophiles should not be in dispute here since the record is easy enough to Google. Professional journalists would admit to ongoing skepticism about his reporting motives and compensation. To the extent that his misinformation efforts go against the ideals and very purpose of journalism ethics, informed news consumers and fellow journalists probably do hate what Rose represents.

Ian Evans said...

Cops, Lawyers & Judges 'are' the problem with JERSEY JUSTICE.

voiceforchildren said...


Letter to Archbishop from PHILIP BAILHACHE

Zoompad said...

"The sock puppet David Rose of the J. Hari Wikipedia controversy is not the David Rose who has lied on behalf of MI5 about WMD, and lied on behalf of Big Oil about climate change, and done so much cruel damage to the lives of child abuse victims on behalf of unknown sponsors."

I disagree. I think its the same man.

Anonymous said...

Hi Rico,
Off topic and if you’ll allow I just fancied a little rant this morning.

First. Pip Bailhache’s lawyer language filled letter to the Archbishop is indicative of how the judicial system in Jersey has gone bad. Ostensibly he is no longer part of the judiciary so who authorise him to look at transcripts from a court case he is not party to? Compare this to people like me who cannot get a copy of the recording of our own court cases.

Secondly, until serious questions started being asked of the judiciary on local blogs, States and electoral reform had been shelved gathering dust since Clothier. The hijacked electoral commission is a smoke screen, a handy and plausible distraction from the real issue that blights this island which is the absolute unaccountable power and control exerted by the judiciary on so many aspects of our lives, often unlawfully.

With the exception of the few establishment members and their foot stomping charge of the lightheaded brigade automatons, our progressive and truly independent elected representatives have zero power, next to no influence and nada ability to change anything of importance to islanders (i.e. everyone who lives here).

Bailhache has come up with 3 non legally binding options for referendum designed to split any chance of a cohesive opposition to the status quo. The effectiveness of this strategy is reflected by the volume of column inches devoted to this straw man debate.