Exhibit 52

July 18, 2007

Boris Johnson and Darius Guppy

You really will want to read this.

The man who made the tape of Boris Johnson talking to Darius Guppy explains what actually happened.

Here's the full story and here's today's update.

Boris actually comes out of it rather well.

July 18, 2007 in Weblogs/Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Boris Johnson and Darius Guppy:


"Boris actually comes out of it rather well."

I'm pleased about that. He deserves a break or two.

Posted by: Bob B | Jul 18, 2007 11:16:43 AM

"Boris actually comes out of it rather well."

Hardly, it's plain from the taped conversation that (a) Mr. Johnson and Mr. Guppy had spoken of this a number of times before; (b) that Boris Johnson was very worried that one of his contacts might hear of the physical assualt on journalist Stuart Collier that Darius Guppy was planning and that he would have been implicated since he had asked for their contact details; and (c) that Boris Johnson did not have an issue with the morality of the planned attack but simply wanted to know it wouldn't be too severe.

Talk about a return of Tory sleaze.

Posted by: Jeff Randall | Jul 24, 2007 5:37:46 PM

I hope they mention it on Have I got News for You next time he's on

Posted by: Support Boris | Aug 4, 2007 9:27:05 PM

Tim Worstall is either very naïve or else must be a buddy of Peter Risdon, the supergrass in the Darius Guppy case.

Have a look for starters at


You say, Tim, that Risdon is talking to Darius Guppy in his blog. I’m not sure. I think that even a nerd like Ridson must realize by now there’s more than one person involved in getting information on him. I know several personally.

As Risdon knows very well a dossier of his criminal activities was given to the British Press a few years ago. Since then that dossier has been added to and will soon be posted on the internet. We need to get one or two legal aspects sorted out and also to protect some sources, including from within the police itself. That’s the only reason for the delay. But it will get posted. In the material there’s some very ugly stuff of a personal nature about Risdon and the only reason we’ve held back on that stuff is because we want to protect third parties. So if Risdon reads this then let him challenge what I’m saying because I’ve already warned him that if he calls me a liar then the personal stuff will be put out there too.

I think he’ll get a shock at just how much we know about him. His days as a pot-smoking drop out student, a trial in Scotland, an abandoned child or two, his treatment of former girlfriends, his attempts to rip off clients and bug their offices, his fantasies about setting up Mohammed Al Fayed. We even know the make of a computer he stole from one of the companies he rented office space to. These are just tasters. Let him deny them. He knows the consequences if he does and he’ll just look an even bigger liar when the proof comes out.

The facts: Risdon was a petty criminal who decided to pull off a diamond insurance scam, having seen the success of Marsh’s and Guppy’s heist. He was caught at the first stage. Basically because he was an idiot. He grassed Guppy and Marsh straight away to get off and the police turned a blind eye to his activities because they were desperate to score on an important high-profile case.

All this is obvious from the evidence that’ll be posted. We even have a privileged letter from the Crown Prosecution Service to a firm of London lawyers which goes through the sequence of events.

Regarding the Johnson tapes. Affidavits from former colleagues and associates include:

“Risdon swept Darius’ offices for bugs and it was often on such occasions that he planted bugs. He used to ring up companies to offer to sweep their offices and then when he swept their offices he used to plant bugs.”

Also, re Risdon’s attempted diamond fraud: “Risdon said the diamond might be worth up to 6 Million pounds but might be sold in England for 2-3 Million. He said it was stolen from someone in South Africa in circumstances involving a murder.”

Ask yourself a question, Tim. When other people have gone to jail for only attempting to bug people’s phones including Clive Goodman why not Risdon? If Risdon was actually arrested for bugging people’s phones including Darius Guppy’s (we have the arrest sheet) then why no prosecution? Why did he only get a caution? (You should see this on his criminal record). Others were prosecuted so why not Risdon? Don’t be naïve. Think about it. Obviously in return for giving evidence at an important trial.

Suggest you do a bit of research on the Regional Crime Squad and the kinds of deals they got up to with their informers. See for example:





Another clue. Look into some of the policemen in the Darius Guppy case who were also Risdon’s handlers. Find out why they really left the force.

On Risdon’s website he claims that he bugged Darius Guppy’s phone because he thought he was being “framed” by him. In that case why regularly bug other people’s phones and what was he doing a little later trying to commit an insurance scam with a diamond himself? Coincidence? Think about it. You can’t be that gullible.

No mention of this latest excuse for turning grass in his police interviews, which will be posted. No mention in his evidence at trial which will be posted. No mention when he sold his story to the News of the World (see Feb 13, 1993 News of the World). No mention in his review of Darius Guppy’s book (see Sunday Express, 26th Jan 1997 p. 81) where he says that his reason for giving evidence was due to “much soul searching.” (Just after he was released from Wormwood scrubs on bail, as it happens).

In fact the first mention of his latest excuse comes in his Amazon.com review of Darius Guppy’s book under the pseudonym of “unforgiven”, in 2004. (It took the bright spark over 10 years to think that one up).

Interesting how he doesn’t mention this review in his postings on his web. Why not? Read it and work it out for yourself. Because he doesn’t want to be caught telling porkies, that’s why. So for example he says in this review that he “wasn’t even charged with any offences.” Well, we know that’s a lie for starters because he was in fact charged, which he admits in his blog, but only after he’s been backed into a corner by Freedom Fighter.

That’s Risdon’s big problem. There’s that much evidence against him and he’s made that many statements that contradict each other that whatever he says now he just looks an even bigger liar. He even talks about “sock puppets” in his obsessed entries on Wikipedia (see the Darius Guppy entry discussion and history pages) But who’s the “sock puppet?” Read his Amazon review and see if you can figure it out. Then read the rest of his website. As one commentator put it “a lot of sock puppetry there.”

So if it’s that you’re just gullible, Tim, suggest in future you take what people write about themselves on their own blogs with a pinch of salt, especially if they’re someone like Risdon. Just wait for the evidence to be posted, read it, compare it with all the contradictory explanations Risdon has given in the past and then without being influenced by anybody draw your own conclusions.

But if it’s that you’re Risdon’s buddy, then suggest you don’t invite him for a meal because he’ll probably bug your house and suggest you do a little more investigation on him. You’ll soon see for yourself what an unpleasant person he is. In a pathetic, sneaky, weird kind of way. A word of advice: disassociate yourself from him.

Posted by: Trucker | Aug 9, 2007 12:48:02 PM

Ah, my stalker appears again. I wondered where he'd got to.

Bet the ip address this was posted from is in South Africa, where Guppy happens to live.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Aug 10, 2007 6:10:16 PM

We know, Risdon.

It hurts when you’re caught out lying over and over again.

The solution?

Don’t lie.

Only a nerd like Risdon could have such a bizarre fascination for IP addresses.
Look at his obsessive Wikipedia entries already mentioned and you’ll see what
I mean. Or Google him and read his comments on numerous geek chatrooms and forums.

You have to admit, Tim, the bloke’s a bit strange isn’t he?

And what type of person is it who would regularly phone his clients, offer to
sweep their premises for bugs, charge them for his services, but plant listening devices in the hope of being able to blackmail them in the future, brag about it afterwards, and then complain about other people “stalking” him???!

I mean, he’s just not normal is he?

As Risdon well knows, a baby could hide their IP address. And nobody here has
tried to hide their IP address. In fact I asked him a few months ago to email
me his number so that I could phone him back! (No reply so far).

The truth is that Risdon knows his past is catching up with him and that quite
a few people have been looking into him. We’ve given him enough clues as it
is. We couldn’t have guessed that stuff, could we? So he knows we’ve got the
evidence which is why he hasn’t denied a single allegation made against him.
Because even he has been able to work out that if he denies what we’re saying
he’ll just look an even bigger liar when the evidence is posted.

So here’s the deal, Tim. Don’t believe a word I’m saying, or Risdon’s saying
or anyone else is saying. Just wait for the evidence to be posted. When it is
you can put a link to it on your blog so that you can look objective
and then judge for yourself about Risdon, based on the facts. Fair enough?
Meanwhile, my advice stands. Distance yourself from him. He’s an unpleasant
person. And if you’re seen to be close to him it’ll just damage your credibility.
That is said with the best will in the world.

Posted by: trucker | Aug 20, 2007 4:02:49 PM

There is a reason why Guppy isn't using his real name here, or indeed anywhere else. While he'd be quite entitled to say "My name is Darius Guppy, and I'm calling Risdon a liar", actual harassment of a prosecution witness is a serious criminal offence.

And this is actual harassment. A couple of months ago, Guppy paid someone to pour paint stripper over my Land Rover. I thought it was kids at first, then he telephoned to claim responsibility - in an unconvincing Irish accent. Why claim responsibility in a false accent? I don't know. Anyway, despite being number-withheld and from a pay as you go mobile, the call was successfully traced by BT's nuisance calls department, and the police conducted an investigation. They didn't feel a case of criminal damage warranted a trip to South Africa.

It will, of course, continue and it will, of course, escalate. But while Guppy can threaten me, and he can pay people to damage my property, and he can pay people to attack me (which will undoubtedly come next), what he can't do is intimidate me. Just as, all those years ago, the heavies he paid to threaten me and follow me when I was giving evidence against him couldn't intimidate me.

And every one of these incidents, online and offline, is being logged as a complaint with the police.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Aug 21, 2007 11:45:14 PM

By the way, my telephone number (as is obvious from the above) and my email address are in the public domain. Guppy, aka trucker, aka freedomfighter (the pillock has actually used different aliases from the same ip addresses) has never tried to contact me in any way other than that mentioned above. Or perhaps I should have said "those". I suppose a paint stripper attack is a form of contact.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Aug 22, 2007 12:19:46 AM

He’s angry.

Paint stripper? Mysterious phone calls? Strange accents? Ip addresses? (Again).

We think the time has come for Risdon to get urgent professional help.

Notice how the man who regularly bugged his clients’ premises so that he could blackmail them is still the victim. First he was being “stalked.” Now he’s being “harassed.”

Notice also his first instinct. Run to teacher. And all because he’s been shown up as a liar in a blog. Ok, so like the rest of us the police will think he’s not all there but the point is that it comes so naturally to him. “Help! Dial 999! You’re supposed to protect informers like me. I don’t like it when people write nasty things about me on blogs even if they’re true!”

As one commentator has already put it: “Risdon’s so wet you could shoot snipe off him.”

And notice how he still hasn’t denied a single allegation we’ve made against him.

Wonder Why.

Was reading through some of the evidence against him a few days ago and came across the following passage from one of his Police interviews which we thought you might find amusing, Tim.

Risdon has just been arrested with a forged passport going into a bank attempting to commit an insurance fraud, coincidentally one year after he acted as the gunman in the Guppy case, which he will say in a later police statement (to be posted) he thought was part of a “book-keeping exercise!”

(Although in this section he doesn’t identify the driver of the car, as you will see when the full interview is posted he goes on to name him, along with all of his associates, within a few paragraphs).

12th March 1991:

Det Serg C - Er well I still can’t quite figure out why you’ve got to attend the bank with a forged passport?

Risdon - Well it was em I admit it was er rather weak. It was greed as I say. I’m trying to get the thing done now and I was informed that that was the only way I would be able to get it (a large, uncut diamond which Risdon had had insured for a large sum of money) …

DS C - How did you get to the bank then?

Risdon - I took a cab there.

DS C - Is it not right you got out of a white Montego?

Risdon - Yes that’s correct.

DS C - Right. Who’s car is that?

Risdon - That’s hired to me. I didn’t take a cab there. I was driven there by somebody.

DS C - So you’re quite happy to sit there and lie to me.

Risdon - I’m trying to protect somebody

DS C - And doing so you’re quite happy to lie to me?

Risdon - No I’m not happy to lie to you.

DS C - Well you did it quite naturally.

Risdon - Yes I did…

And that’s not us by the way but his Police handlers who are calling him a natural liar.

So when the evidence is posted Tim, we think you’ll agree that “pillock” is just the right word to describe Peter Risdon.

In fact that’s why they called him “Norman Risdon.”

Posted by: trucker | Aug 30, 2007 3:39:52 PM

Zweee... bop. Bullseye. Gotcha Guppy!

Sorry Tim for polluting your blog like this, but that's so funny I can't resist.

You, er, have a copy of evidence from the trial in which I was acquitted at half time, no case to answer, do you Mr Notguppy? Evidence that was passed to Guppy and to Guppy alone? Heh.

Right, enough bickering over a grubby episode. People will draw their own conclusions from these exchanges, if they can be bothered to read them. I'm afraid, Darius, that nobody apart from you really gives a shit.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Aug 30, 2007 6:38:24 PM

Actually, since this is sort of on the record, I should point out that the quote above is, though I say so myself, to my credit. Remember, this was during a series of events that were so plainly not a crime that although brought to court, I didn't even have to enter a defence. With this interview transcript in evidence, the case was thrown out. Of course I answered the questions put to me. There was nothing to hide - except, that is, that I had been given a lift by someone and didn't want them to get dragged into it, so I pretended I'd hailed a cab. When it became clear the police had seen me arrive, I bowed to the inevitable. That's because my instinct was of course to protect people who hadn't, say, framed me for a robbery in New York, like Guppy did.

Sorry you find the ip addresses so inconvenient, Darius, but as anyone who has followed the Wikipedia edits fun knows, they are very revealing.

PS - the only person I've seen use the Norman Risdon line (a reference to Norman Wisdom, for anyone who didn't get it) is... you guessed it. Darius Guppy.

Why not grow a pair and use your real name, Darius?

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Aug 30, 2007 7:41:19 PM

Told you he was angry, Tim.

Here’s that link again:


Or, as the Detective in charge of the American investigation put it so well:

“Scotland Yard explained to me that they had Peter Risdon in custody and that he was giving evidence against Darius Guppy and Ben Marsh. Apparently, Peter Risdon had been caught, as most cases are solved, doing something else and rather than go to jail he was going to give up somebody else.”

Risdon was arrested with a fake i.d in a London Bank attempting an Insurance fraud in March 1991. So he’s had 16 years to come up with an explanation for what he was doing.

So far we haven’t seen one that wouldn’t make anyone laugh.

Ok, he’s right. The case was never even put to a Jury but that doesn’t solve his problem. It was never going to be put to a Jury if there were no witnesses, was it? All it proves is that, unlike Risdon, his accomplices weren’t grasses.

Is he saying that if, like him, they’d been grasses and had given evidence the trial still wouldn’t have gone ahead? Doubt it very much.

So here’s his chance to set the record straight.

But then again, he doesn’t “give a shit” does he? Well that’s great. So he won’t mind us posting the evidence and at last allowing the Jury to decide for themselves after all these years what he was actually up to and why he turned supergrass.

Til then we’ll just have to believe what the police have told us.

We’ve already seen what the Detective in charge of the American investigation had to say about it.

Here’s what the Detective in charge of the British investigation says about it.

It’s October 1991, 7 months after Risdon was first arrested, and the British police have travelled to South Africa to interview Risdon’s co-conspirator who, unlike him, has the guts to say nothing.

Det Insp A:

“Do you know Peter Risdon?... you obtained or manufactured this replica rough diamond containing a small genuine diamond and brought that from South Africa to the UK. You offered this for sale as a genuine item knowing it to be nearly worthless. You subsequently deposited at a bank and arranged insurance for the stone with the intention of defrauding the insurance company of the sum of half a million pounds. You produced in obtaining insurance a false fraudulent document. You then instructed your fellow conspirator in this matter (Peter Risdon) to retrieve the stone by means of retrieving it from the bank using a forged passport in your own identity. Your intention was to obtain the insurance money and to sell the replica as genuine.”

People aren’t stupid, Tim, and we’re betting that when they see the evidence they’ll work out for themselves exactly what Risdon was really up to.

Just like the police did.

Which is why for someone who “doesn’t give a shit” Risdon has spent a surprising amount of time protesting.

For example, remember that Amazon.com review of Guppy’s book which he wrote in the name of “unforgiven?” The one where he lies about “never even being charged?”

Read it, Tim. We think you’ll agree. That’s angry.

Or how about his review of Guppy’s book in the Express (26th Jan 1996, p.81) where he writes: “a month later (after acting as the gunman in the Guppy/Marsh case) … I did a lot of soul searching, reached some unflattering conclusions about myself and decided to turn Guppy in to the police.”

Sorry, but he’s caught lying yet again. As the evidence shows, he didn’t contact the police after just one month. In fact so heavy was his conscience after all his “soul searching” that he waited for over a year and made a statement as it happens after he’d been arrested attempting to commit the insurance fraud mentioned above and just after he was released from Wormwood Scrubs on bail. And so deep had been his “soul searching” that he even decided to unburden himself by contacting every media outfit you could name, eventually selling his story to The News of the World (see News of the World 13th February 1993).

Coincidence Tim?

Nothing quite like a stay in Wormwood Scrubs and a cheque from the News of the World to bring about a little “soul searching.”

Or how about in Risdon’s “explanation” in his blog where he thinks he’s speaking to Guppy and threatens him:

“I will take it all a step further, as I should have done years ago.
You'll be hearing from me offline.”

Scary stuff.

Does that sound to you like someone who “doesn’t give a shit,” Tim?

Talking of which, did he make good that threat? If we’ve judged him right, we’re betting not.

Trouble is that, as one of his associates put it in a statement (to be posted):

“His (Risdon’s) problem was that he could never see a project through. He…seems incapable of doing anything in a straight forward manner.”

So here’s a challenge for him. A chance for him to see something through to the end. He has his theories about who’s investigating him. So how about this? Once the evidence is posted and he’s even more angry we’ll pay for his plane ticket to meet us somewhere abroad (within reason). Then we’ll take photos of me, him and at least two other people who are involved. Why abroad and not the UK? Well Risdon’s already answered that one hasn’t he. Because he’s a grass and will run straight to the police (see his previous postings). Ok he won’t feel so comfortable without the backup of his handlers and he’ll find it more difficult to hide bugs but if he’s scared we can arrange to meet in a public place and we can even pay for you to come along too, Tim, as a witness.

Then let’s see if he’ll put his money where his mouth is. If we prove his theories wrong, to your satisfaction Tim, will he confirm here for the record that he’ll pay call it £1,000 to a charity of your choice?

Seems fair. If he’s that convinced of his theories then his money’s not at risk (he can put it on account with you, Tim). He’ll fly at no cost, win the bet and get the chance of making good his threat to Guppy. But if he’s wrong then the mystery of who’s investigating him is solved and the money goes to a good cause.

So. Can Risdon see it through?

Tim adds: Here's the bit I don't understand. What has all this to do with me? Why are all these stories being addressed to me? I've never met any of the people invloved in all of this: never even bumped into them on the street. Just don't get it.

Posted by: Trucker | Sep 9, 2007 3:19:42 PM

Good grief. This might not actually be unhinged, but most doors are better equipped.

The extraordinary thing about this argument is that in order to do a deal with the police, you have to plead guilty to an offence. This plea, and other things like evidence given against other people, is then taken into account in the sentencing. That's why the American equivalent is called "plea bargaining". And there is no suggestion, not even from Guppy here, that I did plead guilty to anything. So I simply cannot have done a deal. It's crystal, unarguably clear.

His obsession with trying to prove this point can only be the result of continued criminal activities. He doesn't want his current associates to know what he's like. If my posts have caused him any inconvenience on this front, that's a good thing and I am glad of it.

I'm also strangely flattered by the attention. I've now been the subject of the attention of a radical Moslem who said he was going to set up a "Risdon Watch" website, a radical Islamist who phoned me to let me know it is his religious duty to kill me because I have taken a stand in support of free speech. And now a career criminal. By thy enemies thou shalt be known, or something. I'm pleased with the crop so far.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Sep 9, 2007 6:51:00 PM

Well, I have apologised before for this pollution of your blog, Tim, and I do so again. I have felt a need to respond after a fashion, but will not do so again.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Sep 9, 2007 6:57:17 PM

Think you’ll agree, Tim. That’s the weakest one yet.

So first it’s the IRA who’s after him. Now it’s Al Qaeda.

Do you really think such people would be interested in a lonely failure who spends his days in a dirty squat posting comments to himself on his blog?

Don’t see it somehow.

For the record then: Risdon didn’t accept our challenge. Odd for someone so sure about his theories. Still, if he changes his mind once the evidence has been posted he’s got my email address.

Also for the record: It seems pretty obvious he didn’t make good the threat intended for Guppy in his explanation blog. More Risdon hot air it would seem.

Risdon is obviously confused. You see, unless we’re mistaken Tim, if you read our previous entry not one word is quoted from Darius Guppy.

There are quotes from two policemen on different continents, not DG.

Here’s a couple more examples:

(From Risdon’s Police interview 12th March 1991)

Det Serg C: How about if I put it to you Peter that the actual reason’s to claim against the bank, at a later date?

Risdon: I’d prefer not to comment on that at the moment.

Det Serg C: Do you know if the diamond was actually insured having been deposited at the bank?

Risdon: I did know that it was insured, yes.

The second example comes with Detect Constable ME who is quoted in an article in Vanity Fair (1993, to be posted) where he is asked by the author why he thought Risdon had grassed. ME replied that in his opinion Risdon had been annoyed by Guppy and Ben Marsh’s refusal to put up his bail. In fact, as the evidence will show, Risdon had blackmailed Guppy and Marsh and tried to extort money from them in return for his silence and they had told him where to go.

That’s four different policemen who’ve given very different accounts to Risdon’s (and there’s more). What’s more that’s four examples that Risdon knew all about but which he conveniently forgets about in his postings. Wonder why Tim.

And is he saying they’re all lying? Don’t think his handlers in the force would take too kindly to that. Or was it just Guppy in disguise passing himself off as different policemen?

Likewise the Unforgiven review in Amazon is by Risdon, not DG. The quote from the Express is what Risdon wrote, not DG. The quote from his explanation blog is again from what Risdon wrote, not DG. And the quote from one of Risdon’s associates wasn’t from DG either.

And that’s Risdon’s big problem. Because when the evidence is posted Tim you’ll see for yourself that not one word comes from DG or Ben Marsh. Not one. The evidence comes from the police, independent witnesses, Risdon’s associates and Risdon himself. And that’s why it’s so damaging for him.

Now go back and read all Risdon’s postings here and elsewhere on this matter, Tim. If he’d had nothing to hide, he’d have been brief from the beginning: “Publish and be damned. I don’t care because the evidence will prove my innocence.” But he didn’t say that. He just tied himself up in knots and created a permanent record of his lies.

Then go back and read our postings and compare them with Risdon’s. From the beginning we’ve been consistent. So we’ll repeat our message:

Don’t believe a word we say. Look at the evidence and judge for yourself. Then compare it with what Risdon himself has written – not DG or us or anyone else, but Risdon himself. Our bet is that you’ll agree with us. But then again maybe you won’t. Maybe you’ll agree with him. We doubt it but that’s your right. In which case no hard feelings.

Simple, isn’t it?

The comments at the end of his last posting about DG are again irrelevant and come without one piece of evidence to back them up. He hasn’t accepted our challenges so far. So here’s another one for him. We challenge him to come up with one piece of evidence to back up his claims. But in fact, it doesn’t matter whether DG is a Saint or Al Capone. It makes no difference because you don’t need us or Guppy or anyone else to prove that Risdon is a petty criminal, a police informer and a liar. The evidence does that all by itself.

This exchange could go on forever Tim, so let’s keep things simple.

When you cut through all the Risdon b/s it comes to this, doesn’t it?:

He can moan and whine, run to the police and come up with all the weird conspiracy theories he wants. It won’t change a thing. We have the evidence and he knows it. That evidence is going to be published and there’s nothing he can do about it.

So the sooner he accepts it, the sooner he can move on and concentrate on such hugely successful ventures as his “March for Freedom.”

See you Tim.

Tim adds: Please, can we get this straight? You've confused me with someone who gives a shit about the differences between two convicted criminals. I simply don't care about who did what to whom some years ago. My knowledge of anyone in this comes from interactions some years after all of this happened.

I'll take people as I find them, thank you. So far I have found that Mr. Risdon writes extremely well (something I find important, knowing that others don't) and I look forward to having a pint or two with him when we find ourselves in the same country/town at the same time. I will then continue to make up my own mind about him, as I do with every human being that it is my pleasure to meet, on the basis of what I think about his behaviour to me and those around me.

Another way of putting this. I believe, very seriously, in the possibility and power of redemption. This isn't a religious statement, it's simply what I regard as a truism about human beings. I certainly wouldn't want to introduce anyone to the little shit I was when I was 20.

You are, of course, at liberty to post further comments here, but I'm not sure what you think you might be achieving by doing so. My opinion of Mr. Risdon will be swayed by his interactions with me and those I care about.

Posted by: trucker | Sep 15, 2007 8:06:16 PM

See here, half way down post is a new section. As promised, pollution of Tim's blog ends now.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Sep 16, 2007 11:33:08 AM

well well well, where do i start!! first of all tim quick question, are you pals with PR?? Just with PR reffering to you as a friend! Having looked on PR's blog page i agree that he is a werido. I have just read his link about the guppy sarga!!

I have had a look at various sources about PR that prove that he is a grass, tout whatever you want to call it. He infact is a complete idiot, for example: i have posted 3 comments on his freebornjohn blog about the guppy sarga, all of those comments have been deleted! Deleted by a moron that is running a fucking campaign for "freedom of speech"! Ha ha ha , christ this man his a having a laugh!! He obviously is so threatend by the growing pieces of evidance against him that are popping about all over the internet! I have only commented on here so that it would not be deleted and that PR will respond to me. I assume that that the weirdo has my ip address!!! Well PR i live in london,paddington to be precise!! nnd before you start saying that i am DG, i am not, and have not met the fella before!

Posted by: james conway | Sep 19, 2007 8:02:08 PM

See you Tim.

Tim adds: Please, can we get this straight? You've confused me with someone who gives a shit about the differences between two convicted criminals. I simply don't care about who did what to whom some years ago. My knowledge of anyone in this comes from interactions some years after all of this happened.

I'll take people as I find them, thank you. So far I have found that Mr. Risdon writes extremely well (something I find important, knowing that others don't) and I look forward to having a pint or two with him when we find ourselves in the same country/town at the same time. I will then continue to make up my own mind about him, as I do with every human being that it is my pleasure to meet, on the basis of what I think about his behaviour to me and those around me.

Another way of putting this. I believe, very seriously, in the possibility and power of redemption. This isn't a religious statement, it's simply what I regard as a truism about human beings. I certainly wouldn't want to introduce anyone to the little shit I was when I was 20.

You are, of course, at liberty to post further comments here, but I'm not sure what you think you might be achieving by doing so. My opinion of Mr. Risdon will be swayed by his interactions with me and those I care about.

HA HA HA HA, just read this after i posted. Obviously RISDON has hijacked tims page! A pint or two!! Fuck me who would want a pint with a grass! And if it was tim who added this, you imagine the converstaion between to sad web bloggers! Or blockers as most people call em!

Posted by: james conway | Sep 19, 2007 8:15:06 PM

"trucker" has an email address of trucker@hotmail.com, according to the links on this page. Now, here's a thing. On the talk page for Guppy's entry at Wikipedia, there's someone who calls himself "robert conway" with a given email address of "trucker123@hotmail.com". This Conway can spell, and claims to be a South African journalist. There are no published articles online bearing his name. None at all.

In an email correspondence with Wikipedia editors, I proved that "Robert Conway" and a couple of "anonymous" contributors to his entry were all in fact Guppy himself, and so they deleted a lot of absurd material he had added to his own entry - including a line about how he was persecuted because people are jealous of his good looks - and locked the article. That's why "trucker" complains about my involvement with Wikipedia, in one of his comments above.

Trucker, trucker123 aka Robert Conway, and James Conway are all aliases of Darius Guppy, though why he's using such a limited palette is anyone's guess. In fact, it's just plain weird that he's using aliases at all.

Everything about this is weird. After being so adamant that I acted as a witness against him because I did a deal with police over another offence, "trucker's" last comment above quotes the police officer who arrested him (ME) speculating about why I might have given evidence as I did. In other words, not even the police knew why I gave evidence. There was, plainly, no deal - they would have known about it. My version of events has been correct all along and Guppy has inadvertently demonstrated this for me.

Now, Tim is right to say I am a convicted criminal, but I hate to be bracketed with a career villain like Guppy. I want to be clear: I have two convictions - one for breaking the Opticians' Monopoly in 1983/4, of which I'm very proud, and a trawl in a cuttings library for Oct 1983 will give more detail because it was national news. The second is for small scale cannabis smuggling, and I think the law is at fault in that case; cannabis should be legal. I do not have any criminal convictions for anything that involved dishonesty, and I'm making this comment to put this on the record.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Sep 20, 2007 7:54:57 AM

In the context of this blog, In ought to have noted that one of my "criminal convictions", the spectacles thing, brought me into contact with Lord Harris of High Cross, one of the heroes of free market economics, who supported what I was doing and attended the opening of my first shop, in Clerkenwell. We maintained an occasional correspondence from then until his death.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Sep 20, 2007 8:23:50 AM

Rober Conway?? What the fuck is this guy talking about!! I have already stated that i have no relations with Guppy! Infact i use the name james conway, as i dont want this prick rison to know my identity, infact any one that wasnt a internet weirdo would know that james conway is a character from the movie goodfellas, played by booby de niro! As you will be able to tell by my ip adress risdon(peter has a fetish for ip adresses!) i am now in the northeast of england!! You really are weird i do think you write well for a police informer, did you write this well whilst making your statement against guppy and marsh??

I thought that i wrote very well on yojur sad freebjorn blog, when i posted 3 comments on your darius guppy blog. Of which all 3 were deleted! You of all people delted them, becasue obviously knew that what i posted was the truth, and your supose to be a fucking embassador for this freedom of fucking speech bullshit!! Pardon my french but you really are a wanker!

As you seem to be unsure of my identity for some reason, i am offering you peter informer risdon to meet me in a public place somewhere abroard like marbella for example and we can chat on your side of the story, then i will put you in hospital for being a coward, a grass and trying to mock me on tim "boring" worstalls blog!

I say marbella and not a place in england as you would probaby turn up with your friends from the old bill, have me nicked for threats towards you, and AGAIN give evidnace against some one!!!

Come on risdon, like you said in a earlier statement on this blog:"grow a pair"! Come on peter meet me!!!!

Posted by: james conway | Sep 21, 2007 8:56:39 PM

I've heard the tapes, and I have to say that I don't think Boris can be accused of any wrongdoing. I do not believe he had any intention of helping Guppy. Frankly, I think any human soul subjected to 30 minutes of Guppy going on about how he's like a modern day Napoleon would agree to anything, just to get him off the damn phone.

Posted by: Cerebellum | Oct 1, 2007 9:48:10 PM

Oooh Peter!

I don't care what nasty things people are saying about you!

You're so brave!

Take me back to your flea pit, cover me in honey and probe my IP Address!

Mwa x Mwa x

Sexy Sarah Belle

Posted by: cerebellum | Oct 5, 2007 6:05:03 PM

Well, I can't believe people are still talking about this.
Frankly, Pete's a decent bloke and they got me bang to rights.
Now let's drop this silly nonsense, shall we?

Posted by: Darius | Oct 9, 2007 12:27:21 AM

Is it just me or has our friend risdon went all quiet?? and i cant believe that guppy is now saying that risdon is a decent bloke, hes a grass that wants fukin burnt!! or could this be risdon pretending to be guppy??

Posted by: james conway | Oct 17, 2007 9:19:40 PM

Hold on Tim. We thought Risdon “didn’t give a shit.”

But that’s four or five postings he’s made, at least in his own name, since he first said he wasn’t gong to “pollute” your blog.

Plus two if you include his “cerebellum” posting (a little cyber cross-dressing there it would seem) and his most recent effort in which he pleads that he’s “a decent bloke.”

And look back at the timings of his entries. Have you noticed how he responds sometimes within a couple of hours of a posting and often twice in quick succession? It’s as if he was just sitting at his computer all day worrying about what was going to crop up next.

Doesn’t he have a job? A social life? A friend?

No Tim. We all know he gives a very big shit.

Which is why he’ll keep writing here or elsewhere, tying himself up in knots, because he just can’t help himself. And we’ll keep playing with him, chipping away, posting tidbits here and there, having fun exposing him as the liar he is.

So first the IRA were after him, then Al Qaeda.

But in his spare time the Hero of the “March for Free Expression” is still able to rub shoulders with the likes of Lord Harris of High Cross.

In fact, according to his “explanation” blog, he once even met…..Robert de Niro (!)

Bless him.

Only Risdon.

He seems to have got his knickers in a twist about one of the previous bloggers. No surprises there. That’s the problem with obsessive personalities, they tend to come up with conspiracy theories when the simple answers will do. Wait til you read his police interviews Tim. There are some truly hilarious moments. Pure Norman Risdon.

And what’s the champion of free speech doing deleting negative comments from his blog?

Wonder whether he’ll meet up with James Conway. So if you’re reading this James and he does agree to meet you in Marbella, let us know so we can turn up too.

Of course there’s a very simple way for Risdon to prove his conspiracy theories one way or the other, isn’t there? He can accept our challenge and come and meet us. After all, if he’s right he’ll get the chance of making good his threat to Guppy so he should be jumping at the opportunity. He won’t have the back up of his police handlers abroad but he can always meet us somewhere public if he’s scared. So let’s see if he puts his money where his mouth is.

Saw the link to his blog above.

As one commentator put it: “you almost feel sorry for the man.”

(The fact that Risdon cannot see what even a five year old would pick up immediately from his blog – namely the contradiction between ‘championing’ free speech on the one hand while bragging about bugging people’s telephones on the other –demonstrates on its own what a tragic character he is. He seems totally confused in his fantasies. Is he Thomas Jefferson or J. Edgar Risdon?)

Apparently our Norman has a long range photo of DG at the time of his arrest taken with a special lens that can see through sunglasses.

Of course he does.

And we have a satellite photo taken with a special infrared lens that can penetrate walls which shows Risdon in suspenders molesting a rather disgusted looking Chihuahua.

As you’ll see when it’s posted, according to an affidavit by his ex-business partner BMcC (or ‘Tom’) Risdon used to fantasise about developing a ray gun that he could fire at windows to hear people talking inside buildings.

Unfortunately for Risdon we have the statements of the four police officers who arrested DG. They confirm that he said almost nothing and since the whole thing occurred according to them at 6 am, sunglasses seem unlikely. Then there’s the custody records of which we also have copies. As Risdon will know from personal experience every item on a person taken into custody is recorded. But, surprise surprise, no sunglasses.

(The implication of Risdon’s statement, had he thought about it is, of course, that he, a witness and possible suspect was tipped off by bent police about the timing and whereabouts of the arrest of another suspect. And that, we admit, really would be interesting).

But again the test is simple, isn’t it? We challenge Risdon to post this mysterious photo. Nothing could be easier if it exists that is. So let’s see it.

Our very own J. Edgar Risdon even managed to bug the police holding cells, apparently, because we then have a piece about Guppy and Marsh speaking to each other from next door cells in French apparently and notes being taken of their conversation by a policeman who’d managed to hide himself.

Unfortunately, according to the transcripts of the trial, the prosecution confirms that DG and BM were kept totally separate at all times which makes sense since there’s no way that you’d allow suspects in a case to confer. We also have Guppy and Marsh’s police interviews and they couldn’t be more different to Risdon’s. Marsh cracks a few jokes but basically says nothing while Guppy keeps his mouth firmly shut (to be posted). Risdon’s interviews though are pure verbal diarrhoea as you’ll see when they’re posted Tim. There’s a part where he even goes on about a plot to assassinate Pol Pot! You can still see the lawyer’s handwritten comment in the margin: “this man should be committed.”

And, as Risdon knows perfectly well, unless the officers are bent, any notes they take have to be produced in evidence. But no such notes exist. So here’s another challenge for Risdon: let him produce his evidence.

The truth is that you don’t need to be an expert psychologist to work out that Risdon projects onto others his own inadequacies. Which is why he’s so eaten up, because the composure of Guppy and Marsh contrasts so much with his own panic, as you’ll see for yourself Tim.

For example, we have a transcript of prosecuting counsel’s closing statement at the trial. The very first words are, referring to DG and BM: “Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury‚ you have seen two very strong men in the witness box.”

No such comment was made about Risdon, for obvious reasons.

No doubt prosecuting Counsel had read the very police interviews we’re going to post, alongside Risdon’s police statements where he says he’s terrified of DG.

For example, in Risdon’s own words from his statement to the police (to be posted):

“I do feel intimidated by Mr Guppy’s threats and I consider him to be a person to employ physical harm to those he sees as having crossed him.”

And according to counsel’s notes taken at DG and BM’s original bail hearing the prosecution asked for DG to be remanded in custody because Risdon was frightened for his life!

There’s also a truly puke-making moment from the trial transcripts when Risdon is giving evidence but he still tries out of fear or just plain obsequiousness to suck up to Guppy, saying: “I’m still really very fond of him.”

Let Risdon deny any of this. We have the evidence, we’re going to post it, and it’ll just prove what we all know, that he can’t help lying. It’s like an illness for him.

But no doubt the same heroic instincts which he showed in the past will propel him to meet up with us or with that previous blogger.

The same magnificent valour which led his business partner (‘Tom’) to state this about him in his affidavit (to be posted):

“He (Peter Risdon) was, I think, quite scared of me, despite the fact that he is about one foot taller than me. I once chased him all over our offices.”

Or remember that threat he made to DG? Here it is again:

“I will take it all a step further, as I should have done years ago. You’ll be hearing from me offline.”

Presumably then it wouldn’t be difficult for the Hero of the March for Free Expression to get on a plane to South Africa and knock on his door, would it? He wrote those words a year ago. So what’s been keeping him?

This particular passage is also interesting because it shows up one of Risdon’s more obvious inferiority complexes.

Have you noticed, Tim, how Risdon seems to have a real chip on his shoulder about academic achievement? If you Google him you’ll see that several people have said the same thing, that he’s someone who thinks he’s cleverer than he really is. We have a possible explanation for this. One of his associates says in a statement that Risdon used to boast about being “University – educated.” For some strange reason this was very important for him. He used to claim that he’d got a degree from St. Andrew’s University in Scotland. In fact he went to St. Andrew’s College in Edinburgh and his academic career was, you’ve guessed it, not a great success. As with every thing else he couldn’t see it through and flunked. This may account for much of his bitterness and envy towards DG and BM and this is certainly the impression given in his business partner’s (Tom) affidavit, as you’ll see for yourself.

Risdon also claims that DG is a “career criminal.” We challenged him in our previous posting to produce his evidence. As usual, nothing.

Then Risdon claims that DG destroyed his car. Sounds to us like another Risdon attempted insurance fraud, if in fact it ever happened. So let’s see the insurer’s report. In fact, do the insurers know about Risdon’s past? Or does his mortgage company? Perhaps we should do a little “soul-searching” ourselves and let them know. He says that a trace was made to a pay as you go mobile number. From this it would be easy to get a location fix. (Presumably South Africa or Northern Ireland, if Risdon is to be believed). So let’s see the number. So far zero evidence.

Then he claims that DG had him followed by his heavies “all those years ago.” Think about it Tim. Guppy and Marsh’s bail conditions included being forbidden to contact or intimidate witnesses. Had Risdon been followed the first thing he’d have done, being a natural born grass, is run to the police. After all that’s what he did when people simply posted comments on the web about him. As night follows day an application would have been made to have DG remanded in custody for breach of bail conditions. According to the evidence including the court transcripts and notes of every remand hearing no such application was ever made. Not even a hint of such an allegation.

So, where’s Risdon’s evidence?

And you can also bet that the man with the special x-ray camera would have taken photos of the heavies who followed him and shown them to the police. So where are the photos?

Risdon also claims to have only two criminal convictions. His former business partner has some interesting things to say about this Tim, as you’ll see. So we challenge him to post his criminal conviction sheet, the one where it also shows a charge of illegally bugging people’s phones, for example. But he should make sure he asks for all the data held about him on the police computer, not just the convictions. Inconvenient things like a trial for armed robbery in Scotland (another Norman Risdon farce) or the fact that he’s a registered police informant and all the information he’s passed to the police.

You see Tim, most young children experiment at some stage with lying. They get away with it a couple of times and they adopt it as a strategy. But only temporarily, because very quickly they realise that it’s in fact a bad idea as it becomes impossible to keep track of all the lies and the web unravels. In other words people choose to tell the truth not simply because it’s the moral thing to do but also because it’s the easy thing to do. What makes Risdon such a freak is that, in his late forties, he still hasn’t learnt what most people learn before they reach the age of ten. Lying is a disease for him.

Perhaps most interesting of all, is Risdon’s response to the youtube posting: a truly unconvincing “Ah yes, you see I forgot to mention that it was in fact the police who originally offered me a deal but it was I, with my sense of civic duty, who insisted that I couldn’t possibly go down that path.”

Admit it Tim. It doesn’t come much weaker.

But that’s our Norman for you. So, having argued that offering suspects deals is against the law, he then shifts the blame onto the very police officers who saved his skin! (As you’ll see from his business partner’s affidavit, Peter Risdon would sell his own mother). So it’s now the police officers who were crooked enough to offer to get him off the hook but he, innocent Little Red Riding Hood, who insisted not.

And what a climb-down from his original “explanation.”

None of what’s emerging, not one word, was in that “explanation.” Why not, if he was being full and frank?

Risdon also argues that Detective Constable ME’s opinion that he grassed DG and BM because they didn’t give into his blackmail somehow “proves” (as he puts it) his innocence. Call us slow but we fail to see by what twisted logic being effectively labelled a grass and a blackmailer by a police officer exonerates him. But that’s our Norman for you.

So far we’ve seen four policemen’s comments regarding Risdon. Here’s a fifth.

It’s from DG’s police interview in July 1990 (to be posted) where, unlike Risdon, he keeps his mouth shut.

Det Insp A (to DG): “This was a very, very complicated cleverly thought-out conspiracy, It was done in such a way that everybody would have been fooled…But at the end of the day you paid Risdon thousands of pounds. Peter Risdon has decided to tell the full and frank truth about being your accomplice.”

Read this in conjunction with Risdon’s very own statement to the police (to be posted) after being arrested for his attempted insurance fraud already referred to in this blog:

Risdon: “The events surrounding my arrest have given me the opportunity to meet police officers from Scotland Yard and, therefore, the chance to explain exactly what happened in New York.” (!!)

Remember Tim, this is the man who wrote in his article in the Express of 26th January 1997 (already quoted) that he had turned DG into the police “after much soul searching” and “about one month” after he had acted as a gunman in DG’s heist, which he explains he had done only because he had thought he was taking part in a £25,000 “book-keeping exercise.” Yet in his statement to the police, it in fact emerges that it was a full year later, after he had been caught by surreal coincidence attempting an insurance fraud involving a diamond in a bank in London, that he was afforded the welcome “opportunity” of unburdening his troubled conscience.

We think you’ll agree, Tim. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to work out what happened here and why Risdon turned supergrass.

Next J. Edgar Risdon claims he’s got more secret tapes of DG and that he’s going to release them unless the revelations about his past cease. He puts this as “it depends how annoyed I get.”


But, didn’t he tell us all that he “didn’t give a shit?”

This is the man who whined that people posting truthful comments about his past on the internet were “criminally” harassing him and were the subject of a police investigation. Obviously he’s not being advised by his police handlers on this one because they would tell him that his threat constitutes blackmail. And that really is a criminal offence. (And you talk about “redemption” Tim). But luckily for him we’re not grasses and we won’t be running crying to the police so he should be safe so long as a lawyer hasn’t read his blog.

Still, we’ve kept a copy of this particular posting in case he goes back and edits his more obvious lies, a speciality of Risdon’s - along with deleting comments on his blog that are inconvenient to him.

We too have some very personal information on him. But we’ve deleted those sections of his business partner’s statement that deal, to name only one example, with some truly embarrassing inadequacies gathered from conversations with a certain F. No, Tim, we’re not like that. Our purpose is simply to tell the truth about Risdon because he can’t do so himself. So we’re not sinking to his level and we’re not going to invent things about him either (too easy). We’re sticking strictly to the relevant facts because they’ll do the job nicely.

You see Tim that’s Risdon’s big problem. Because unlike him when we make an allegation we back it up with solid evidence.

So let him do what he wants. It won’t change anything. That dossier will still be posted.

And our job isn’t to protect DG. We’re sure he can do that for himself.

Our first comment on this blog, Tim, was that you are either very naive or a buddy of Risdon’s.

Elsewhere Risdon has implied that the press’ negative comments about him were down to some conspiracy, as usual. In fact, the press were simply not stupid and got a clear impression of the man from when he knocked on all their doors trying to sell his story and from what they knew of his past and from how he came across in the witness stand.

As one journalist at the time put it in an article, arguing that DG and BM’s big mistake was to have had any association with him: “If you lie with dogs, you catch fleas.”

So we’ve advised you not to lie with dogs but if you want to have a pint with him, that’s up to you. Just assume you’re being bugged and be careful what you say. And whatever you do, never ever give him your computer to repair.

We agree with you about redemption and allowing people to move on from when they were 20.

But let’s not forget that it was you Tim who began this blog with a link to a telephone conversation involving Boris Johnson that had been illegally obtained by a very unpleasant man who, according to his own business partner (quote posted previously) used to bug his clients’ offices so that he could blackmail them afterwards. Well Boris can’t have been much over 20 years old himself at the time of that conversation, can he? So in posting that link did you allow him to ‘move on?’ What possible motive can you have had except to embarrass him? Or at best to engage in idle gossip?

So while people would agree that your sentiments appear noble, shouldn’t you be consistent when it comes to applying them?

If you mean what you say, shouldn’t you delete your link to things that concerned Boris Johnson when he was in his early twenties? All right, it wouldn’t make much difference because there will be plenty of other links out there but at least it would show you to be sincere.

Remember something else as well, Tim. Imagine how many approaches must have been made to DG and other friends of Boris Johnson by newspapers offering large sums of cash to do the dirty on Boris. From all the evidence every one of them has kept their mouth shut. Now compare that with Risdon, of whom his own business partner (Tom) says the following in an affidavit (to be posted):

“He (Peter Risdon) had no scruples at all and would betray anybody's confidences to make money without a second thought.”
And compare the discretion of Boris’ friends with the thousands of words Risdon has written on this subject. Risdon the zero’s one claim to fame. Compare it too with Risdon’s selling his story to the News of the World and knocking on the door of virtually every media outfit in the UK to the extent that even the tabloids thought him a creep.
That should give you an indication about the type of low-life Risdon is.
But the main thing about redemption, Tim, is that it requires change. The man who doesn’t change isn’t redeemed. Which is why we’ve been clear from the beginning. We’ve said look at the evidence on Risdon and then compare it not with what we or anyone else have said about him but with what he himself has written, and what he has written not when he was only 20 years old either, but now or very recently.

That Amazon review in the name of “Unforgiven” in which Risdon is obviously lying wasn’t written when he was 20, but in 2004.

His “explanation” blog which is contradicted by all the evidence wasn’t written when he was 20, but in 2006.

His entries in this blog in which yet again he contradicts all the evidence and basically takes you and any other readers for mugs weren’t written when he was 20. They were written within the last few weeks.

So, we’re open minded people, Tim. Like you. And if it can be shown that Risdon really has changed and redeemed himself then we’ll revise our opinions.

But for that, unlike Risdon, we’re going to need hard evidence.

And so far we haven’t seen any.

Have you?

And if so, where is it?

Tim adds: Yes, lovely, you've got lots of evidence, lots of stuff.


Please, don't tell us you're going to post it, please post it.


Put up or shut up.

Posted by: Trucker | Oct 20, 2007 7:17:32 PM

peter oh peter, where has thou gone?? has he went into the witness protection act,because this blogs getting to hot handle!! come on son "grow a pair" and leave us all a "well written" explanation on why you have been hiding since 20th sep @ 8.23 AM, i miss your stories peter!

Posted by: james conway | Oct 23, 2007 9:52:15 PM

Oooh Peter!

The way you shit yourself at the first sign of trouble and would grass your own mother up!

The way you so courageously keep to the code of silence and sing like a canary!

The way you bravely run around offices screaming when someone half your size has a disagreement with you!

The way you squeal so magnificently to your police handlers like some slimy teacher’s pet as soon as someone calls you a liar on the internet!

The way you so heroically threaten people on your blog but don’t have the bottle to follow it up!

The way you find such huge reserves of courage to invent things about people on your website but brick yourself at the thought of actually coming face to face with them!

The way you so gallantly post admiring comments to yourself using female aliases!

The way you so masterfully suck up to Boris Johnson – again often using aliases – in the deluded belief that he’ll be too stupid to see straight through you!

The way you organise the most stupendous March for Freedom in which a staggering 3 people turn up!

The way you exchanged letters with Lord Harris of High Cross!

The way you once met…..Robert de Niro!

It’s all, well, so … MANLY!

Ooh Peter! Peter! Peter!

You really know how to drive a girl wild with desire!

Take me home you animal… and let me play with your computer…

Mwa x Mwa x

Sexy Sarah Belle

Posted by: Cerebellum | Oct 28, 2007 1:46:39 PM

Thanks for the invitation, Tim, and we couldn't have put it better: put up or shut up.

Although, if you'd been fair, you'd have made exactly the same remark to Risdon.

So, instead of threatening people from the safety of cyber space let him follow up on those threats – and put up or shut up.

If he says he has proof that DG trashed his car, then let him put up or shut up.

If he says he has evidence DG intimidated him with heavies, then let him put up or shut up.

If he says he has a secret photo of DG taken with an Xray camera that can see through sunglasses, then let him put up or shut up.

If he claims that DG is a 'career criminal', then let him put up or shut up.

And so on.

As a notorious police informer who has had many dealings with the law, Peter Risdon should know better than most what constitutes quality evidence and what does not.

We've quoted police officers; we've quoted from Risdon's statements, from colleagues' affidavits including his own partner's; we've quoted from police interviews and from Risdon's very own words – whether written on the web, in amazon reviews, in newspaper articles and so on.

All those quotes as you'll see for yourself Tim are word-perfect accurate – something that should be immediately obvious from the fact that Risdon hasn't challenged a single one of them because he knows them to be authentic.

Now that constitutes quality evidence.

Unfortunately for Risdon, however, the uncorroborated rantings of a sad and lonely zero, embittered by his own worthlessness, who seeks refuge in fantasy from the horror of his fractured personality, simply does not constitute quality evidence.

So well said, Tim. Put up or shut up.

Which is of course precisely what we argued from the outset as you'll see if you scroll back to the beginning of this dialogue where we told you to wait for the evidence to be posted and to judge for yourself at that point without being influenced by what we or anyone else may write.

Why the delay in posting that evidence in its full form then?

First, because there's so much of it that it actually takes a long time to sift through and some of us, unlike Risdon, have lives to lead. Second, some of it has taken time to retrieve from archives. Third, because for legal reasons certain things have to be verified and sources protected. We've also had to go through each statement and delete references to uninvolved third parties. But don't worry, it will be posted, and as Risdon knows perfectly well, our aim is simply to correct his lies and not to invent things. To this end, we are actually, for the time being, holding back on the more personal stuff (and he should know exactly what we're referring to) and sticking to the relevant facts.

Why the piecemeal approach then?

This has been of Risdon's making. All our postings have come in the form of rebuttals. Our preference would have been to leave the debate until the majority of the evidence had come out in one go. However, the drip-drip effect has in the end led to Risdon leaving an even greater trail of lies and contradictions, all of which does him no favours.

In his panic he has even very unwisely opened himself up to a charge of blackmail which may well come to haunt him.

What type of person is it who would regularly bug his clients' offices in order to blackmail them subsequently?

What kind of person then brags about this on a website supposedly devoted to the fight against creeping totalitarianism?

What kind of person then openly resorts to blackmail on that same website when people simply highlight some of his more obvious lies?

What kind of person deletes negative comments from that website while purporting to be a champion of free speech?

What kind of person has the gall to refer to people like Clive Goodman as 'now disgraced' (and he talks about people sounding 'pompous') when Clive Goodman went to jail for doing no more than Risdon openly admits he did himself?

Think about it, Tim. And try, difficult as it may be, to be objective.

So here's the deal. Prior to posting the evidence in its original format, any postings we make in future will continue to be in the form only of rebuttals – counter punches, to use a boxing term. If Risdon doesn't like being rebutted and proven a liar then the solution is simple – stop lying. No lies, no rebuttals.

Fair enough?

That deals with Risdon. Now let's deal with you.

We advised you early on to remain neutral in this matter. That advice stands. And if you can't help being partisan, then that's your perfect right, only have the honesty to admit it.

We asked you whether you had any evidence for Risdon's 'redemption', as you put it. Your silence answers the question.

We also asked you another question. Here it is again:

If you genuinely believe in 'redemption' and you really do think that people should not be held accountable for the rest of their lives for things they did in their early twenties, then what on earth were you doing posting a link to the transcripts of a telephone conversation that had been illegally obtained by one of the most unsavoury characters in Britain and that involved Boris Johnson when he was in his early twenties?

It's a logical question which anyone with half a brain reading your comments would also have asked.

So please answer it this time.

Tim adds:

You did read what I actually wrote did you? You know, that bit up at the top?

"Boris actually comes out of it rather well."

I think that the story itself redeems Boris' actions, certainly it is contrary to the image that most people have of the incident. The one which Polly used to attack Boris over it.

Posted by: trucker | Oct 28, 2007 5:40:56 PM

"What kind of person has the gall to refer to people like Clive Goodman as 'now disgraced' (and he talks about people sounding 'pompous') when Clive Goodman went to jail for doing no more than Risdon openly admits he did himself?"

Oh, what I did was disgraceful. I'm thoroughly ashamed of it, and I'm ashamed I ever had anything to do with you.

I'm afraid I can't be bothered to read all these rambling and repetitive posts. I'm bored with it now, Darius. You see, even if you did prove your point, nobody would care. But since I cannot possibly have given evidence as part of a deal, because I didn't plead guilty to anything, you're not going to prove your point.

I think you're just going to continue to make people's flesh creep. I've pointed a couple of journalists to this thread, most recently someone from the BBC, when the subject of your character has come up. It says everything necessary. I'm certainly not concerned about your ramblings.

And, for all this vituperation, I'm glad I set the record straight about Johnson.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Oct 28, 2007 7:59:34 PM

You didn't need to be Uri Geller to predict that Risdon would 'pollute' your blog again, Tim. He just can't help himself. Like a child who needs to have the last word: he can be read like a book.

For a good definition of the word 'ramblings', visit Risdon's website. As one commentator put it: 'you almost feel sorry for the man.'

To re-cap: Risdon has not denied a single allegation put to him, nor a single quote. Nor has he accepted a single challenge despite issuing some rather ridiculous threats. Nor has he provided a single piece of evidence to corroborate some of his more obvious lies, despite being asked to do so repeatedly.

Now he can call quotes from police officers, witness statements including that of his own partner, police interviews, articles which he himself wrote and so on as 'ramblings', but for most people these constitute evidence, evidence which he has done nothing to contradict - because he knows they're real and because he knows they're going to be posted.

Here's another quote, this time from his business partner:

'Risdon told me that what in fact had happened with the South African diamond in the end was that he and the South Africans had tried to pull off an insurance fraud. I knew that this was one of the several schemes which were originally suggested. I took it that plan A – the plan to sell the diamond to Darius and then rob him – had not materialized. Risdon told me that a similar scheme had been pulled off by the South Africans before and that this was perhaps why he was arrested.

Risdon told me that he had got a false passport in the name of one of the South Africans with his photograph on it. He told me that he went to draw out the diamond from a bank, and was suddenly surrounded by police and he was arrested.

He did not seem to be too bothered about it, and he told me that he was going to sort something out with the police.'

Remember Tim, not one of the quotes posted has been from DG or BM. These allegations haven't come them at all but from independent witnesses.

Are all these people lying? Is Risdon the only man on the planet telling the truth?

And what is the truth? What was he doing in that bank with a fake i.d trying to withdraw a diamond that he'd insured for hundreds of thousands of pounds? He's been asked countless times and he's had 17 years to come up with an answer, so where is it if he's got nothing to hide?

As we said from the beginning, Tim, judge from the evidence, and if Risdon has evidence to disprove what all these people are saying then, great. Let's see it.

Posted by: trucker | Nov 1, 2007 4:03:57 PM

Well then, the sarga continues and still i wait for a reply from risdon on my offer to meet him.

Uri Geller can also bend spoons and i can break backs!! Now less of the bullshit Risdon, at least have the balls to make a comment back to me, i feel left out!!

You know Risdon if this thing with you grassing Guppy and Marsh was not true you would not be botherd at all, yet you always comment and go off the subject by making up bullshit.

I see your buddy "TIM" seems to be backing you all the way, why doesnt he ever add any comments to the shit you write on here?? Obviously these two are "friendly"!

Oh and another thing Risdon, have you ever spent anytime in the can?

Posted by: james conway | Nov 4, 2007 8:43:20 PM

I had thought the host of this blog might be irritated with this comment thread, but he isn't so I still pollute it occasionally.

The allegation that I was trying to commit a fraud with ref to the S African diamond is one Guppy has been making for years, and it was contained in his book. There's no evidence at all that this was the case, and of course it isn't true. The director of Sotheby's I had arranged to see the diamond once I had it gave evidence at the trial in which I was exonerated, with no case to answer.

Tom is an unreliable witness, but since he's getting on a bit now I'll refrain from ad hominem and point out simply that by the time of the diamond affair he had not been involved with me for some time and had no contact with me. He is therefore no more useful a "witness" on this as would be a person stopped at random in the street.

Everybody I have spoken with who has seen this thread believes these various pseudonyms to be hiding Darius Guppy. This man was once one of the leading lights of his generation. Like Aitken and Archer, he had a choice how to live his life when he came out of prison. He has chosen a twilight existence in South Africa, assets in his wife's name, no very obvious legitimate means of support, and a devotion to dishonesty that inhibits him even from an open discussion of these events of the past that are plainly still very much alive for him.

Tom, when we were on speaking terms, was a contradictory character. Despite the bad points and almost no formal education, he'd still quote Shakespeare from memory. I remember one evening when, over the brandy, he started the sonnet "Those that have power to hurt, and do none". It's a good sonnet.

One of the police officers who arrested Guppy has confirmed in full, in a signed statement, all of the points of my account of these ancient events. The starting point was the faked robbery in New York, and the aftermath during which I discovered Guppy had framed me for actually robbing him. He had given the police a description of me at the time - forward contingency planning, if you will - which was used to produce an artists impression accurate enough that I was recognised at twenty metres in a crowded corridor by someone who had seen it, but not me before.

But three descriptions were given, one of which was reproduced in Guppy's book. Guppy claimed it was supposed to be Radek Sikorsky, who he had known at Oxford but Tom, if you're reading this, just think what Alan looked like at the time.

The second was me. The third was of an older man, who Guppy and Marsh in their statement claimed had been the leader of the gang. This was a drawing of my partner at the time, Tom, whose past, they felt, lent credibility to the claim that he had been an armed robber in New York.

This was the first time Guppy was prepared to throw Tom to the dogs. But then, on the tape recording I released to the press, Guppy called Tom a "dog", so perhaps this is hardly surprising. Tom had a role in the Boris Johnson affair Tim was writing about, and to involve him in this matter now is a further occasion when Guppy is willing to sacrifice another person, this time merely to his vanity.

The sonnet Tom quoted to me all those years ago ends "Lillies that fester smell far worse than weeds".

Yes, they do.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Nov 5, 2007 12:18:04 PM

Reading that back, I think I'll elaborate a bit more on the fraud allegation. I had an appointment to show the diamond to a director of Sotheby's after getting it out of the bank. The purpose of this appointment was to make an official, above board, banks-holding-the-money, recorded and entirely undeniable sale. This director gave evidence at the trial-that-fully-exonerated-me, during which he confirmed this.

You can't make an official sale of goods in your own name, receipted, witnessed and so forth, then claim you have lost the goods and claim insurance. It's a fatuous suggestion.

So now we wait for Guppy to release his "evidence" that I'm a nasty man, snatching sweets from infants and never missing an opportunity to kick a puppy, backed up by "affidavits" from a couple of professional crooks.

I've been in flame wars over rival operating systems that were worse than this. The web is a robust environment.

But people reserve particular derision for sock puppets.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Nov 5, 2007 1:18:52 PM

Here's an interesting aside. The diamond I was arrested trying to take from a bank's safekeeping... the 325 carat rough diamond I was trying to sell to the Sotheby's client through one of their directors, that Hennig's had offered to represent for me, that I showed to a group of Lebanese diamond merchants from Sierra Leone...

Guess what. It was a fake. I'm surprised Guppy hasn't mentioned this (though since I can't be arsed to read all his drivel, perhaps he has).

It was a brilliant, superb fake that fooled diamond probes. It turned out it had a special coating that matched the electrical characteristics of diamond.

Another reason why it was such a clever fake was that it was a fake of a fairly poor quality diamond, a bit milky and with lots of flaws. This meant the whiskers of people looking it over weren't twitching as they might have were it a flawless and superb stone.

I certainly didn't know this at the time. The police laboratory, after at first declaring it to be genuine, eventually discovered this fact. I was incredibly relieved that the Lebanese gentlemen, polite as they had been, hadn't bought it. I have a feeling they would have been unable to see the funny side.

So, who was responsible for the fake? That's something I never discovered. It could haver been the South Africans I had been dealing with but they were in a similar position to me, representing it openly in their own names, giving people their business cards, and so on. That doesn't ring true.

So I guess they had been ripped off when they bought it. But how, and by who, I never discovered. The idea of me pretending to be one of them to get the stone from safekeeping came from them, but it was an adventure rather than anything else. They comprised a respectable, though plainly unconventionally entrepreneurial, property developer, a pine furniture importer and a consumer electronics manufacturer. So being interviewed by the police came as a considerable shock, and we went our separate ways after that.

But somewhere, someone has a masterful way of faking utterly convincing rough diamonds that convince the diamond testing machines as well as the expert eye.

How many of their wares are in circulation, do you reckon? I'll bet there are some.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Nov 5, 2007 5:11:11 PM

As always Risdon hasn't produced a single piece of evidence to back up his convoluted claims. And if you can follow the logic of his rantings, Tim, then you're cleverer than us. So now there's some red-herring about fakes. We've seen what several police have said about this: that he was attempting an insurance fraud - and it's as uncomplicated as that.

Now we've been asking him for a long time to prove his claims. But nothing.

So we’re not going to invent things Tim, which any fool could do, we'll just stick to the evidence and let you judge for yourself.

And how typical of Risdon to attempt to discredit his business partner, the man he chose to go into business with after all, and who he also ripped off as the evidence shows.

You can imagine how terrified people must have been, Tim, when they first read Risdon’s ominous threat to DG:

“I will take it all a step further, as I should have done years ago. You’ll be hearing from me offline.”

Think of our disappointment therefore when the best he could come up with was a rather feeble: “I’ve told on you (DG) to a BBC journalist, so there!” like some odious playground sneak.

What an anti-climax.

Risdon’s typical victim stance in his “I’m ashamed” passage is hardly more impressive, is it?

Somehow, it all sounds just a little too ham.

Compare it with the transcript of DG and BM’s trial, for example, where Risdon is giving evidence and sucks up to Guppy: “I’m still really very fond of him, you know.” Or how about this passage from his ‘explanation’ blog where he imagines he’s talking to DG and BM: “Well, I’m flattered” Or how about another passage in the same blog where he writes along the lines of “that was all a long time ago. Let’s just forget about it now and make up. How about it, D?” (Even for Risdon that was too cringe-making and so, typically, he went back and edited it).

So, having failed with the oiling-up approach he has now switched to the wounded, self-righteous one.

And only someone as utterly self-absorbed and away with the fairies as Peter Risdon could have failed to anticipate the obvious riposte.

At this point therefore he must take a deep breath and make himself comfortable for what we are about to tell him is going to come as something of a shock.

You see outside of the cyber fantasy world in which he is the Hero of the March for Freedom, there is not one person on the face of the earth who is exactly proud of knowing him, either. We’re sorry to burst his bubble but people simply don’t rush down the street declaring “Look everyone! I know Peter Risdon! You know, The man who swapped letters with Lord Harris of High Cross! Would you like my autograph?”

It’s terrible to have to remind him of the harsh realities but in the real world, real people recognise him as a deeply unattractive character; a person who regularly betrayed his friends, business associates, even family members; someone who used to plant bugs in his clients’ offices to blackmail them at a later date; a cowardly police informer; a petty crook with huge inferiority complexes; a joke, total nonentity and embarrassment.

Even the prosecution team in the DG/BM trial (some of who shared chambers with the defence barristers) considered him an utter low-life.

Even his own family are ashamed of him. Ask him about his children, Tim. What’s become of them? How responsible has he been towards them? Do a little digging.

Take this passage, for example, from his business partner’s affidavit:

“Risdon thinks nothing of his girlfriend ….. He told me that as soon as he makes money,
he would buy her a car, and then leave her.”

As his partner confirms, Risdon used to boast regularly to his colleagues at work that as soon as his petty criminality bore fruit he would dump his girlfriend whom he openly mocked as “ugly” behind her back, together with their child, and get a prettier model.

Now that’s the sort of man who really does make your “flesh creep.”

The truth is, Tim, that Risdon’s anger is misdirected. For if he had even an ounce of self-knowledge he would see the obvious. He was a petty criminal long before he met DG or BM. DG did not force him to commit a typical Norman Risdon fiasco of an armed robbery in Scotland. He hadn’t even met him. Nor did DG force Risdon to bug his clients’ offices. Nor did DG or BM or his business partner have anything to with his incompetently handled attempt at an insurance fraud for which he was arrested and charged, and so on and so forth. The fact is that even if he had never met DG or BM or BMcL (his business partner), he would still have ended up in exactly the same place – a sad and lonely dweeb, frustrated at his own inadequacies, a fantasist sitting behind his computer; cancerous.

It’s his karma.

And if you don’t want any of that karma infecting you, Tim, trust us on this one – stay a million miles away from the creep.

Risdon keeps harping on about “nobody caring” and about his not “giving a shit.” For someone who puts such store about being “university-educated” (another fantasy) he seems to be an exceptionally slow learner, doesn’t he.

So here it is, one more time.

Someone who “doesn’t give a shit” does not post endless comments on the web regarding this subject, especially having said on some half a dozen occasions on this blog alone that he’s not commenting anymore. (“Here ends the pollution, Tim”). Someone who “doesn’t give a shit” isn’t so obsessive and doesn’t write reviews on Amazon.com, in which yet again he lies, 14 years after the event in question in the name of “Unforgiven.” Someone who thinks other people “don’t care” either doesn’t write the following words on his very own blog (link posted by him above):

“When I posted my explanation about why I'd gone quiet after the March for Free Expression, I knew there would be some follow through. The comments there show the start of it, but it has continued and I do feel it affects future activities for the moment. I've had reasons for keeping quiet about it so far, even if that has made me look rather inconsistent about projects I suggested at the end of last year.”

He cares, Tim, and he’s fooling no-one.

Risdon’s principal argument thus far has been that the police somehow didn’t know what his real motivations were and exactly what type of person he was, (which is flatly contradicted by the 5 police officers’ quotes we’ve posted so far), and that above all the police don’t do deals with informers, at least not in the UK.

Does he really think people are that wet behind the ears?

Put that argument to any half decent criminal solicitor or barrister and he will simply laugh at you, Tim. There may not be formal processes as in US – style plea bargaining, for example, but deals happen hundreds of time every day throughout the length of Britain, as most people, including Risdon, know perfectly well. Even Judges do deals on an informal basis, often indicating to defence barristers in their chambers the sorts of sentences their clients could expect given certain scenarios, for example.

Indeed, Risdon himself is clearly aware of such informal practices, when, his brain already working overtime on how he’s going to grass on DG and BM just after he’s been arrested attempting to commit his insurance fraud in the bank, he says the following to a police officer during his interview:

Det Serg C: But you’re quite happy with Roland but not this other chap

Risdon: Actually I would prefer not to have said it was Roland, its, I’m not very comfortable in this situation, I’m trying to protect a couple of people for reasons which I don’t propose to go into in formal interview context

Det Serg C: Right, you say the formal interview context, obviously you’re willing to speak in detail about something else later?

Risdon: I prefer not to comment on that.

(As you’ll see, Tim, within minutes of the commencement of his police interview the Hero of the March for Freedom names all of his business associates and provides their addresses as well).

Now we’ve asked Risdon for an explanation for his actions on numerous occasions. Anyone with nothing to hide would have been far more forthcoming.

So here is a summary of his version of events as he’s put it over a number of blogs and articles:

 Risdon was a decent sort of bloke really. OK, he had all sorts of plans for blackmailing people and had engaged in many acts of petty criminality that nearly always involved betraying his associates and friends but these are inconvenient peccadillos that can be overlooked.
 One day, in March 1990, quite by chance he found himself in a hotel room in New York engaged in a “£25,000 pound book-keeping exercise” (as he would describe it in his statement to the police), the sort of standard accounting procedure which, as you would expect, involved tying up two young men, firing a gun at them and making off with £2 Million pounds worth of precious gems. (Peter Risdon has the dubious distinction of concocting what has to rank as the single most ludicrous excuse for a criminal act in the history of law breaking).
 When, however, he subsequently realized that there might have been slightly more to this “book-keeping exercise” than he had originally assumed, he was wracked with guilt and spent many sleepless nights engaged in painful “soul-searching” (His article in the Daily Express, already quoted above).
 Indeed, such was his torment, that exactly one year later our Norman walks into a Bank with a fake British Passport attempting to retrieve a diamond that he had had insured for several hundred thousands of pounds.
 Nor do the remarkable coincidences end there, Tim. For that fake passport was in the name of a South African criminal associate of his who had, astonishingly, attempted to pull off a similar heist some time previously.
 Our Norman now finds himself in Wormwood Scrubs, awaiting bail, and, shortly after his release, his saintly disposition compels him to unburden his conscience to the police and reveal the true nature of his book-keeping activities in New York a year earlier. Similar instincts of civic virtue usher him of course to the doorstep of virtually every newspaper in Fleet Street where, eventually, he is able to sell his story to The News of the World, releasing in the process the Johnson tapes.

(Remember Tim, Risdon is caught lying repeatedly during his recounting of events over the years. We’ve already seen, for example, how he claimed in his article in The Daily Express that he turned DG into the police only one month after the robbery in New York – a clear lie. And we’ve also seen how he claimed in his Amazon review that he “wasn’t even charged with anything.” Another blatant lie).

So, having heard the Risdon fantasy, Tim, here’s what really happened – and you are easily intelligent enough (as are most people) to work it out for yourself upon reviewing the evidence, which is of course why Risdon is in such a panic:

Risdon was a truly nasty piece of work. Not in the serious or intimidating mould as he would have liked, but in a sneaky, pathetic, cowardly way. Prone to delusion brought upon by a combination of low self-worth and excessive cannabis smoking, he used to fantasise to his colleagues at work about founding a “criminal Empire, with tentacles as far away as … Greece!”
He knew exactly what he was doing in that hotel room in New York which is why one year later, having witnessed the success of DG and BM’s venture, for which they had been paid out in record time, he decided to have a go himself.
 However, being Norman Risdon, he was caught at the very first stage. Such evident organisational skills persist to this day and can be seen in his mass Nuremberg-style rallies which attract audiences of up to two people.
 Within minutes of his arrest he was working out how best to trade information for leniency. And, having been charged, sent to Wormwood Scrubs and released on bail, he then tried to blackmail DG and BM, enlisting the help of an associate (BH) to secretly tape record them at various meetings in hotel lobbies where he was hiding nearby in the company of his police handlers. DG and BM didn’t fall for any of it, however.
 By this stage Risdon had grassed up DG and BM and had given a statement to the police in which he famously claimed to have considered the events in New York as part of a “£25,000 book-keeping exercise.”
 Shortly after giving that statement, all charges against Risdon are magically dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service (letter to be posted), only to be re-instated some 8 months later, by which time the coast is clear because police officers have flown to South Africa and have established that, unlike him, Risdon’s accomplices are not grasses and are not going to be giving evidence against him. Not surprisingly, without any witnesses the case is not even put before a jury and is dismissed.
 Risdon then gives evidence at DG and BM’s trial and cashes in as much as he can with the tabloids with whom he has been negotiations for several months. It’s what he’s always wanted. Recognition, at last!
However, realising eventually that everybody including his associates and the press itself recognise him as the low-life he is, Risdon then sets about re-inventing himself and concocting excuses for his actions. Such a process of re-invention includes setting up over a decade later one of the saddest websites in the history of cyber space in which, to shore up a fragile ego, he posts comments to himself such as “you’re so brave Peter!” using female aliases and peppers his narratives with expressions such as “I used to exchange correspondence with Lord Harris of High Cross!” or “I once met Robert de Niro!” Or how about this one from his blog about DG (link posted by him above): “This places me in the position of a man cradling a blunderbuss, while a small boy buzzes round annoyingly with a pea shooter.” (And he talks about others sounding “pompous”). And, as far as his explanation for his sleazy past is concerned, being Norman Risdon, and unable to keep track of his lies, he simply ties himself up in knots – the irony being that had he taken things on the chin like a man not only would he have ended up looking less cowardly, but he would actually have been judged as more honest as well.

Now you put it best of all, Tim. It’s time to put up or shut up.

Risdon has made numerous allegations here and elsewhere which even for people who know nothing of the history of these events are patently invented. He’s been challenged repeatedly to back up those claims with evidence. But he’s produced nothing. By contrast we have provided evidence to corroborate what we’re saying, evidence that Risdon mistakenly imagined had disappeared over time but which is still very much in existence. Likewise, Risdon has made certain threats that he has, as usual, failed to follow through, where, by contrast we have invited him to make the transition from fantasy world to the world of action and meet us. (As have some other bloggers). In fact, we’ve even offered to pay for his plane ticket.

In the interests of balance, shouldn’t you be reminding him, Tim, that it’s now for him, not us, to put up or shut up?

Posted by: Trucker | Nov 7, 2007 10:53:02 AM

Hi Tim.

We were just going through Risdon’s latest posting again because to be honest it’s often difficult to follow the thread of his conspiracy theories and we didn’t really get all that he was saying the first time round.

If we understand him correctly, this has to be his most hilarious comment to date. He really should be on the stage.

Have you noticed how accident-prone our Norman is, Tim?

First, he accidentally finds himself involved in a book-keeping exercise in a New York hotel room that involves taking part in an armed robbery. Then, by remarkable coincidence, exactly one year later he is asked by some charming fellows for reasons that he doesn’t specify to retrieve a diamond from a bank that he’s had insured for a very large sum of money using a fake passport when those same charming fellows had attempted to do exactly the same thing a little while previously. But, in fact, lo and behold, he’d been conned into believing it to be a genuine diamond when in reality it was a superb fake.

Little wonder they call him ‘Norman Risdon.’

Quite what the relevance of the fake is in all of this remains beyond us. (You can insure a fake for a million pounds and falsely claim it’s been lost or stolen and you can insure a genuine diamond for a million pounds and do exactly the same thing. It makes very little difference because in the end you’re still defrauding the insurers).

And then, if we get this right, Risdon’s latest claim is that DG and BM went to all the trouble they did, described their assailant as someone who bore no resemblance whatsoever to Risdon (as you’ll see for yourself from the photofit when it’s posted), told the N.Y police for obvious reasons that they’d never seen their assailants before, get paid out in record time, and all this only to be able to go afterwards and say: “Oh, by the way officers, we forgot to tell you that we did know the robber after all. It was Peter Risdon!”

He’s getting the roles confused here, Tim.

He’s the one who’s Norman Risdon, not anyone else.

Yes, that’s right. Our innocent little Peter woz framed! He was cunningly conned by DG and BM into believing that it was his accounting skills that were required of him in that New York hotel room.

And to top it all, the police officers – who charged him knowing him to be innocent by the way – and who we’ve quoted, as well as independent witnesses, his associates and even his business partner, are all lying! He’s been fitted up by everyone!

Admit it, Tim. It is literally impossible to imagine a more ridiculous series of excuses, isn’t it?

We’ve also heard how he was asked to be involved in a plot to overthrow Pol Pot, how he has a secret photo of DG at the time of his arrest taken with a camera that could see through sunglasses, how he has secret recordings of DG and BM talking to each other from their cells, how he used to exchange correspondence with Lord Harris of High Cross, how he once met Robert de Niro, how he is the organiser and supreme leader of the March for Freedom, how his life has been threatened by Islamic fundamentalists, how he was developing a laser gun that could fire at windows so that conversations could be heard inside buildings, and on and on. The list is endless.

And all these fantasies from someone in his late forties.

Obviously the man doesn’t have any friends who can advise him.

So when you see him for that pint, Tim, do him a big favour. Put an avuncular arm round his shoulders and break it to him gently:

“Peter, old fruit. Extinguish that spliff for a second. You really must think before you write. Otherwise people are just going to consider you an even sadder dweeb than they do already.”

Posted by: Trucker | Nov 7, 2007 8:11:19 PM

Yet again he Risdon doesnt respond to my question!! Then again he may have as i dont read all of hid drival!

Risdon last chance..........

Posted by: james conway | Nov 8, 2007 7:56:09 PM

Who are all these horrid people who are stitching you up?

It's just so obvious to all your female admirers that big, bad, nasty old DG was sick and tired of forking out to swanky firms of London accountants and so decided to hire a modest book-keeper like you instead. I mean, are people so simple-minded to imagine for one second that someone of your moral probity would examine a company's books unarmed? And when you discovered an irregularity in their VAT returns what possible alternative did you have but to tie them up, fire a bullet at them and make off with 2 Million pounds worth of gems? It's the sheer naivety of people these days that's so shocking, isn't it?

And what about that diamond in the bank, Peter? It's so blindingly clear to anyone with half a brain cell that, having acted as DG and BM's book-keeper a year earlier, the only reason you got that diamond insured for hundreds of thousands of pounds and then went to retrieve it using a fake passport in the name of someone who had recently attempted an insurance scam using exactly the same method, was to return it to its rightful owners and to let the bank and insurance company know about their lax security procedures. And to imagine that some very gullible people out there might not believe that story, Peter!

I mean, don't these people know who you are?

Don't they realize that you're University-educated?

Haven't they heard that you're J.Edgar Risdon and that you've got secret tape recordings of people that would bring down whole Governments?

Don't these people appreciate that you once met Robert de Niro?

They're just jealous, that's all.

Whereas I recognize your brooding genius.

But there is one thing I have to tell you, Peter, as your biggest female fan. And it's for your own good, so please don't take it too hard. It's that ….you see, the object of all your unrequited obsessions is …… well …..I just don't know how to break this to you ……. a BLOKE! Yes, that's right, Peter! A MAN! Where I'm all woman!

Why can't you get him out of your system, Peter? What's he got that I haven't (apart from the obvious)? And your constant, infatuated references to him in your blogs! Ooh! The trollope! I could scratch his eyes out! How could you though, Peter? To come back like that after 14 years and write that Amazon review in the name of 'Unforgiven!' And I thought you'd moved on and forgotten him! Get help, Peter! See Someone! Before it's too late!

Don’t you realize that women find you irresistible as you are, Peter? We don't mind that you didn't go to Eton or to University. So don't beat yourself up about it. We don't care that you're a tragic little fantasist, a cowardly sneak who would grass his own mother up. It just makes us see the little child in you who was teased at school for being so unpleasant and we start to feel all warm and maternal.

Ooh Peterkins!

Is it true that your chip (not the one on your shoulder) is a full 12 Kilobytes?

Mwa X Mwa X

Sexy Sarah Belle

Posted by: Cerebellum | Nov 14, 2007 8:45:24 AM

Some people learn how to spell. The commenter who signs as 'James Conway' is different; between the posting of Nov 4, 2007 8:43:20 PM and that of Nov 8, 2007 7:56:09 PM he forgot how to spell. Weird.

Unless, of course, he is a sock puppet and the person with their hand up his fundament forgot, on Nov 4th, that he was supposed to be using his 'down with skool' voice.

Just for clarification, I did say Guppy would hear from me offline. He is apparently so mired in criminality that he doesn't understand what a remark like this means to civilised people. But when I did chat with m'learned friend two obvious problems were pointed out.

First, in order to bring a defamation action I'd have to prove this is Guppy. I suppose that's one reason why he is using these aliases.

Secondly, and more importantly in a way, since Guppy is known to have placed all his assets in his wife's name, there's no prospect even of recovering costs in the event of a successful action.

That does, of course, leave Blake Publishing. There's a limitation of seven years in libel cases (and no-win-n-fee libel arrangements weren't in place when the libels were originally made), so I immediately have problems.

Since making this comment, though, another problem has arisen. I've had to think through my attitude to libel actions and the internet because of two anti-libel-law campaigns I took part in (Usmanov and homoeopathy). I confess I'm now uncomfortable about the idea of initiating libel action.

And I'm relaxed about the impression that Guppy has given here. Nothing I could say would make him seem more ridiculous, so there's no point trying.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Nov 17, 2007 12:35:27 PM

Hi Tim.

(If you can follow what this nerd is going on about with his latest reference to a previous blogger you're better than us. And how it's relevant to the latest postings is again beyond us. The man has challenged Risdon to meet him and until Risdon "puts up or shuts up" as you wrote then no-one is going to take his silly theories seriously).

It takes a certain amount of conceit to set up a blog in the first place because the assumption on the part of the blogger is that he or she has something worthwhile or interesting to say. As we’re sure you’ll agree, in most cases such an assumption is without basis.

Risdon is no exception to this rule. So when he talks about no-one “giving a shit”, one thing is for certain: people genuinely “don’t give a shit” about Freeborn John’s opinions on any subject whatsoever. And it is the height of arrogance for him to assume otherwise.

This conceit is of course even greater when the blogger assumes the role of moral arbiter, Daily Mail-like. Which is why a low-life like Risdon giving his readers moral lectures is so farcical. But for him to pontificate as he does on a wide range of subjects, to talk in the process about others sounding “pompous” and at the same time to use expressions such as “the now disgraced Clive Goodman” is simply stomach-turning.

However, what renders the arrogance truly breathtaking is when Risdon assumes that people will be simply too gullible to see through his excuses (which have to rank as among the most ludicrous in the history of web-postings) and too stupid to be able to think for themselves and do their own investigations.

See, for example: www.companieshouse.gov.uk

Click on the link to ‘Our Sevices’ in the left hand margin.

Click on ‘Disqualified Directors Register.’

Type in ‘Risdon’ in the Search Box.

Lo and behold, our Norman’s name appears.

He was disqualified from being a company director from 2003 to 2008.

The ‘reasons’ link lists the following reasons for which disqualification orders are made:

Sections 2 - 5: Disqualifications for general misconduct in connection with companies:-
2: On conviction of an indictable offence.
3: For persistent breaches of company legislation.
4: For fraud, etc, in winding-up.
5: On summary conviction.
Sections 6 - 9: Disqualification for unfitness to act as company director:-
6: Unfit directors of insolvent companies.
7: Disqualification undertaking made by an individual
8: Disqualification after investigation of company.
9: Matters for determining unfitness of directors.
Sections 10 - 12: Other cases of disqualification:-
10: Participating in wrongful trading.
11: Undischarged bankrupts.
12: Failure to pay under county court administration order.

Tut, Tut, Tut…

None of this is of course surprising when you read what his former partner has to say about his business practices. According to his partner’s affidavit, Risdon regularly cheated his company’s creditors, he planned an insurance fraud against his company, he defrauded the liquidators of that company and so on, all of which you’ll see for yourself, Tim.

What is astonishing, however, is that a man whose profession is computers should, of all people, have failed to anticipate just how easy it is in this day and age to uncover things about individuals and just how permanent those records can be made. This is of course only one further example in an endless list regarding Peter Risdon but it illustrates neatly just how dishonest and above all just how detached from reality he is.

So let’s hear his excuse this time.

In particular, why no mention of this in his so-called ‘explanation?’ (Which we note, by the way, he has doctored to include a mention of his diamond fiasco – but only after he had been backed into a corner and really had no alternative. The original ‘explanation’, as is obvious from the dialogue with Freedom Fighter, made no reference to it at all).

And please, when he gives his ‘explanation’ no arrogant assumption that his readers are fools this time. No asinine excuses either. (Was he framed by the DTI?) No utterly tragic references to Lord Harris of High Cross or Robert de Niro. No faux-remorse. No lectures on how ‘ashamed’ he is. No blaming it on everyone else except himself. (This is one matter even he will find difficult to pin on DG). And please, no convoluted conspiracy theories involving IP addresses.

Instead, how about an entirely novel approach?

The truth.

Posted by: trucker | Nov 21, 2007 12:24:44 PM

So let’s get this right, Tim.

Risdon originally argued that DG was writing using an alias because he realised that it would be an offence to contact a witness (him) in a criminal investigation. When asked to prove his allegations, however, he produced no evidence. Nor did he accept our challenge to meet us.

The story has since changed. Now, apparently, the real reason for DG’s anonymity is that he fears being sued by Risdon for libel. And all this despite the fact that in Risdon’s own words he has, in fact, nothing to fear since the statute of limitations applies and in any case he has all his assets in his wife’s name!

Meanwhile, so strong was Risdon’s case against Blake Publishing that he waited over 10 years to seek legal advice only to discover that he’d missed the boat as far a libel claim was concerned!

Admit it, Tim. Risdon has a genuine genius. He really is the Leonardo da Vinci of the ridiculous excuse.

(And we’re just waiting to hear what his latest one regarding his disqualification as a company director will be).

That’s the problem with conspiracy theorists. So befuddled are their minds that they see complexity when simplicity stares them in the face. So like us, Tim, and like most people, we’re confident you’ll agree that in 9 out of 10 cases it’s the simple answers that are the correct ones.

So here are some simple answers regarding Risdon’s latest excuses for you to consider:

 Blake Publishing will have had a team of lawyers scrutinising every allegation that DG made about Risdon in his book before allowing them to be published.
 Having seen the evidence for themselves and having done their own due diligence they will have advised Blake’s that those allegations were truthful and that Risdon wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in the event of any action being brought by him.
 Since Blake’s have strong relationships with many of the newspapers that Risdon sought to peddle his story to, their impression of Risdon will simply have been reinforced by what those newspapers had to say about him.
 The real reason, therefore, that Risdon didn’t sue Blake’s was not because of his cunning plan to delay consulting a solicitor until over 10 years after the event by which time it would be too late, but because he knew the allegations were true.
 Finally, he also knew that any action brought by him would only open up a whole can of worms about his shady past.

So, here’s another challenge for him which we suspect he’ll avoid as with all the other challenges that have been put to him.

He writes that he sought and obtained legal advice. Good. In that case there will be some evidence of this. Either email correspondence, solicitors’ letters, an opinion from Counsel and so on. So let’s see this evidence.

The truth is that every time our Norman posts a comment he simply adds to the general impression of him – that he is an utterly tragic dweeb and a very, very slow learner.

So here it is for him, one more time:

THINK, Risdon, before you write because you’re your own worst enemy.

Posted by: trucker | Nov 22, 2007 5:01:13 PM

ha ha ha, yeah your right my dictionary isnt to0 good, i didnt go to eton or uni, that makes two of us peter! new offer!!!! i want to meet you in london, now i know that your living in cambridge(you dont need to be pally with the old bill to know that!)and that its only a short train journey away. ill get back down to my "old school ways". now be a man and accept. bring your friends like tim and sir ian blair too!

Posted by: james conway | Nov 22, 2007 7:14:09 PM

ha ha ha, yeah your right my dictionary isnt to0 good, i didnt go to eton or uni, that makes two of us peter! new offer!!!! i want to meet you in london, now i know that your living in cambridge(you dont need to be pally with the old bill to know that!)and that its only a short train journey away. ill get back down to my "old school ways". now be a man and accept. bring your friends like tim and sir ian blair too!

Posted by: james conway | Nov 22, 2007 7:14:44 PM

ha ha ha, yeah your right my dictionary isnt to0 good, i didnt go to eton or uni, that makes two of us peter! new offer!!!! i want to meet you in london, now i know that your living in cambridge(you dont need to be pally with the old bill to know that!)and that its only a short train journey away. ill get back down to my "old school ways". now be a man and accept. bring your friends like tim and sir ian blair too!

Posted by: james conway | Nov 22, 2007 7:17:21 PM

Sure, I'm coming to the end of a ban as a company director - I was director of two firms that went into liquidation with crown debts and poor record filing histories. The DTI's solicitors initially asked for a six year ban, but then accepted another director was responsible for financial admin and reduced this to four and a half - within the five year guideline for 'minor' infractions. What of it?

I have enough of these now, so I might as well show you what it looks like when you connect through a proxy - the one here (tv2ch.net) is based in Japan - but you are still visible. Just think, Darius. Every time you've connected you've shown this sort of thing.

I'm not really sure why you're going to such trouble to pay an old robber to lie about the distant past. All you'll achieve, so far as I can see, is to continue to raise my profile.

Carry on, though. It's working well for me.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Nov 27, 2007 12:19:33 PM

Fame at last!

Risdon's profile is being raised!

(But didn't he write in a previous posting that nobody was reading any of this and wouldn't 'give a shit' even if they were? So how is his profile 'being raised?')

And lest we forget, he used to write to Lord Harris of High Cross!

If Risdon had a genuine (as opposed to fantasy) secret camera planted at the homes of the people who were actually reading his comments and could see just how much amusement his 'explanations' evoke, he would be even more angry than he is.

It was pretty obvious Risdon's latest conspiracy theory would involve an IP address, wasn't it Tim?

Now, unlike Risdon, the people investigating him aren't nerds, and really don't 'give a shit' about IP addresses and 'proxys', but didn't we read from the link above something about Pretoria, Gauteng? And didn't we also read that DG lives in Cape Town and the Middle East? Risdon should study his atlas more carefully and work out the distances between these places. It might allow him to avoid such silly mistakes in future.

So here's a test for him.

Where in the world is this message being posted from? (Don't tell him, Tim!)

That's the thing about Risdon. He gets things wrong with uncanny consistency. His theories about the blogger Conway, for example, are clearly wide of the mark, as usual. And from the sounds of things we wouldn't be surprised if Conway gave him a very rude awakening.

But that's Risdon's life story, isn't it? A long series of miscalculations.

And now the man who, after all, Risdon chose as a partner is 'an old robber.' He tries to shunt the blame onto him for his dodgy dealings just as he has sought to pass the blame onto 'another director' who was 'responsible for financial admin' in respect of his latest success story.

Classic Risdon. A coward through and through who cannot accept responsibility for anything he does.

The DTI do not simply ban people like that for mere nothings, Tim, as we all know.

So what's the betting that there'll be a report from the DTI regarding his disqualification? And what's the betting that our Norman won't post it? Another challenge for him, therefore: post that report.

And what's the betting that the author of that report will have expressed opinions about Risdon's business practices that are very similar to those expressed by his former business partner (Tom) and by DG himself as outlined in his book? And what's the betting that those views will be similar to those of his colleagues in these latest failed ventures of his? And what's the betting that even certain of his family and former family members will have similar views too? And how is it that all of this ties in so remarkably well with the opinions expressed in the 5 policemen's quotations that we've posted to date (and there's more)?

All these people, who are totally unconnected, having very similar things to say about Risdon.

Coincidence? Conspiracy? DG's hypnotic influence on them all?

Perhaps they're jealous because he once met Robert de Niro.

Poor Risdon. And to think he's in his late forties.

He'll never learn.

Posted by: trucker | Nov 29, 2007 6:00:43 PM

UPDATE - Guppy has, temporarily at least, stopped pretending to be other people, and has contacted me via a lawyer to deny some allegations I made above. Specifically he denies the paint stripper attack, though does not deny telephoning me to claim it, and denies having heavies threaten me twenty years ago. I don't believe him, and my reasons are in this post.

Posted by: Peter Risdon | Jan 18, 2008 1:04:06 PM

Tired of rubbing shoulders with the likes of Robert de Niro on the slopes of Val d'Isere.

Jaded by endless advice-seeking on the part of national politicians and world leaders.

Irritated by constant demands for autographs in the street - (now that his profile has been raised).

Our very own Free Bjorn Borg is back.

(Or as he rather touchingly puts it in a number of postings on his own blog: "Wow!" Or, how about this for sad: "Risdon's Return!")

And to prove the point that nobody - but nobody - messes with him, he's even devoted an entire page to the latest fascinating episode of his rather depressing life (see the above link to his website).

Yes, he's back.

Back with a vengeance.

Now, while it is not for us to comment on matters that according to Risdon himself are sub-judice, we don't think it would constitute a contempt of the process to make three comments that will strike most people as immediately obvious from a reading of his latest whine.

First, according to our Norman, DG has initiated libel proceedings against him. You do not need an intimate knowledge of these matters to realise straight away from this fact that, unlike Risdon, DG has at least avoided hot air. No ludicrous Risdon-like excuses such as "I had such a strong case that I decided to wait over ten years before seeking legal advice only to discover that I'd missed the boat!" And that fact, on its own, sets DG apart from Risdon - an individual who finds making the transition from the world of fantasy to the world of action and reality profoundly problematic.

Of course on a deep level, deluded as he is, even Risdon himself appreciates this central inadequacy of his personality which is why, according to his own work colleagues (as you will see for yourself, Tim) he was always highly envious of others - especially if they were wealthy, or successful or were simply, unlike him, 'doers' rather than ranters. Those colleagues describe how eaten up and twisted from within he was by feelings of inferiority. And this certainly goes a long way to explaining his obsession with DG.

Next, from a reading of Risdon's latest posting it would appear that DG's lawyers have written open letters. Presumably therefore they would have no difficulty with those letters being published. So let Risdon post them, together with the advice of his own solicitors.

We'll wager that both sets of lawyers will have asked Risdon for evidence in support of his allegations, a request which, for some reason, Risdon finds peculiar, and we'll wager further that Risdon, as always, will have failed to meet the challenge, suggesting, of course, that he is lying.

We may of course be wrong, in which case the Prophet of Free Speech will lose nothing by allowing us all to see the correspondence and judge for ourselves. The fact that he has failed to do this begs more questions than it answers.

Finally, we come to Risdon's latest fantasy-inspired allegation - that DG bugged the prosecution's rooms in Court!

Now, Tim, let's be honest. It was pretty obvious that at first you had a bias in favour of Risdon. That was understandable given that he was a fellow blogger and that you will have felt a natural affinity towards him as a consequence. And indeed, at least one other commentator has picked up on the point, although, to be fair, you were intelligent enough to curtail your instincts if only for appearances' sake. But we suspect that by now, even you will have begun to realise what a weird and tragic character we are dealing with here.

Never mind the absurdity of the allegation itself. (Had there been even a whiff of such a thing the prosecution and the judge would have had a field day, not to mention the press, and there is not the slightest hint of such a suggestion anywhere in the record). The bigger point surely is that here we have a man who:

regularly bugged his clients' offices so that he could blackmail them subsequently

who bragged in his review of DG's book on Amazon that he even bugged his car

who's one claim to fame in life is that he bugged a telephone conversation that was embarrassing to Boris Johnson

who used to fantasise about developing a ray gun that could be fired at windows to enable him to listen in to conversations

who even fantasised about bugging DG and BM's conversations to each other from their police cells

who was actually criminally charged with bugging offences

yet who despite all this accuses OTHER people of planting listening devices in the prosecution's rooms at Court!

The fact that Peter Risdon did not instinctively balk at the hypocrisy of such an allegation before he made it, an allegation coming, of all people, from him, shows just what an abnormal person he is.

Now if you look back at this entire posting Tim you will see a clear pattern that repeats itself throughout:

Risdon makes ludicrous allegations, we challenge him to provide even the slightest evidence in support of those allegations and .... silence.

By contrast, every allegation we make is backed up not by DG or BM but by independent witnesses or independently verifiable facts.

(We note, incidentally, that Risdon has failed to meet our most recent challenge to post the report by the DTI into the circumstances surrounding his disqualification as a Company Director).

Sooner or later Risdon is going to have to walk out of his cannabis-induced haze and step into the world of reality and, in the real world, real people are simply not going to accept unquestioningly and without corroborating evidence the rantings of a proven liar and one of life's natural born rejects - a man rejected by his former friends, work colleagues, business associates and even family members on account of his inability to tell the truth, his moral and physical cowardice and his deep unpleasantness.

In the meantime, as we've said, we'll steer clear of commenting on matters that are sub-judice, save to repeat our challenge for him to publish the legal correspondence.

Isn't it about time, Tim, if only in the interests of appearing impartial, that you asked Risdon to put up or shut up?

Posted by: Trucker | Jan 26, 2008 3:21:49 PM

As you know, Tim, we have asked Peter Risdon several times now to post the report into the circumstances regarding his ban as a company director, assuming, correctly as it happens, that such a report will in fact have been made.

Typically, Risdon has avoided the challenge.

A little investigation shows that an Unfit Conduct Report was indeed filed against Risdon in respect of Glasir Ltd, a company of which he was a director and which went into liquidation on 15th November 2002.

However, it appears that we may have been a little too charitable in our original assessment for, not only does it seem that there exists ONE report into Risdon’s less than upright conduct as a company director, but that in fact at least TWO such reports exist.

For a little digging shows that ANOTHER Unfit Conduct Report was filed against Risdon in respect of The Circle Squared Ltd – a company of which Risdon was also a director and which also went into liquidation on 27th June 2001.

Nor does the story end there, for we find that Risdon’s illustrious record as a company director extends further back in time to Willowpell Ltd which was put into compulsory liquidation on 10th July 1991 and also to Electronic Techniques and Services Ltd which likewise was put into compulsory liquidation on 19th March 1991.

And here are a few snippets from the affidavit of Risdon’s business partner (Tom) regarding his business practices in relation to these last two aforementioned companies:

1.“I produce as Exhibit “BMCL/1” a copy of Form ED1AHD, which is the Official Receiver’s report containing summary of the Statement of Affairs as at 19 March 1991, the date of the Winding-up Order, submitted by Peter Risdon. I should add that in my view, the reason for the failure of the Company was not, as Risdon apparently stated at Paragraph 6, the failure of its principle source of business, but rather Risdon’s failure to pay the Company’s creditors despite the fact that the Company or Risdon (the two were interchangeable, as the transactions of the Company were mainly cash based) had enough money to pay its creditors.

Risdon seemed to take delight in not paying his debts and forcing suppliers out of business.”

2. “I also know that Risdon drew money out by forging my signature. Money went from the Company’s bank account and Risdon must have forged my signature as we were both on the mandate.”

3. “Willowpell Ltd was then set up and Risdon became a director. Risdon rang me up about doing an insurance job on Willowpell. He said we could make money together and empty Willowpell. By then, however, I thought that Risdon was totally mad, and could not keep his mind on any particular goal.”

4. “Risdon stole an Olivetti computer from a Company called “Kesperry Ltd” who had previously rented the offices at Tabbard Street. I produce as Exhibit “BMCL/9” a business card of that Company. Risdon took the computer when Kesperry left the offices, and Kesperry never found out that it was Risdon who had stolen it. Risdon told them that the removal van had taken it. I know that he also took that computer with him to Willowpell.”

Etc etc etc …

Hardly the glittering business career of Risdon’s bosom pal Lord Harris of High Cross, is it?

And his excuse for all these fiascos?

The same excuse he always gives.

The same excuse he gave for his attempted diamond fraud; the same excuse he gave for his involvement in DG and BM’s New York heist (“I woz framed!”);

The same excuse he gives for the failures of his personal life:

“It was all someone ELSE’s fault.”

Of course it was.

By now Tim you should be in no doubt about just what an appalling hypocrite and fantasist Peter Risdon is.

The self-proclaimed champion of free speech who is in fact an avid fan of censorship when it comes to concealing his own grubby past.

And so it is that we ask him once again to publish:

 The two Unfit Conduct Reports regarding his company directorships
 The legal correspondence regarding DG’s action against him

Freeborn John, especially if he has nothing to hide, should have little difficulty with this.

So let him show these things to us.

Before someone else does.

Posted by: Trucker | Jan 28, 2008 2:14:38 PM

here is a heavy that guppy has not contacted to "do you in"! yes thats me Risdon. i have a problem with you, infact its not just you, i have a problem with all grasses. im picking on you because you think you are a big,bright man, when infact your just a little slug, hiding behind the old bill. i couldnt give 2 fucks about the old bill, ive done more years in the can then youve made comments on this dismal blog. jst beacuse i aint contacted you in a while doesnt mean ive let the beef go, no it just frustrates me more. reply back kidda or thats it

Posted by: jimmy conwy | Jan 29, 2008 10:38:10 PM

looks like the supergrass has vanished. wishful thinking id say! probably making up some bullshit about guppy or his life as a low life informer! i smell a rat!

Posted by: james conway | Feb 24, 2008 2:05:06 AM

Risdon, we have herd a whisper from a very good source that you are not only a low life police informer but you are also a informer for the security services. Scrapping the barrel aint we?? I smell a rat! could you confirm this??

Posted by: james conway | Mar 8, 2008 3:45:26 PM

No surprises that Peter Risdon has failed to meet our latest challenges, Tim.

As even you will have worked out by now the champion of free speech and transparency is a huge fan of censorship when it comes to concealing his own grubby little past.

Anyway, we have the report into the circumstances surrounding Risdon’s disqualification as a company director. In particular we have a copy of an affidavit signed by Risdon himself, (which we will post in due course along with the other material), entitled: ‘Form of disqualification undertaking.’ Without boring you with the details this form constitutes a sort of ‘guilty plea’ in proceedings brought by the authorities against Risdon.

Appended to that form is a ‘schedule of unfit conduct to the disqualification undertaking given by Peter William Risdon’ in respect of Glasir Ltd and The Circle Squared Limited.

It makes interesting reading.

Remember the story so far, Tim:

In his truly ridiculous website Risdon has set himself up as a defender of the truth and of the people’s freedoms. Rather snootily he has sniffed at the likes of ‘the now disgraced Clive Goodman.’

In his various ‘explanations’ given on a variety of blogs he has conveniently overlooked a past that, to put it at its politest, constitutes a catalogue of disgrace, incompetence and informing to various authorities. Above all cowardice and pettiness are the features of his ‘career.’

When confronted with the evidence of his disqualification as a company director on this blog, Risdon came up with two excuses:

It was all a mere peccadillo and
It was the fault of one of his colleagues, who was responsible for ‘admin.’

Sorry, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

In fact, the very first admissions Risdon makes in his affidavit are:

“I (not anyone else, but I, Peter Risdon) caused Circle to trade in breach of its statutory obligations to the Crown Departments etc” and

“From the date of my appointment as a director on 19 November 2000, I (not anyone else, but I, Peter Risdon) caused or allowed Glasir to trade in breach of its statutory obligations to the Crown Departments etc”

The details are too many to list here and you’ll be able to read them for yourself, Tim. However, as a taster, incredibly, not only did Glasir fail to register for PAYE, for example, but traded for a full 26 months without making a single payment or return to the Inland Revenue.

In other words, this was no ‘peccadillo’, a question of Risdon being a little late in filing a couple of returns, this was a question of someone, from the very outset and throughout the life of the company, deliberately siphoning off moneys due to the Revenue. Likewise, with the company’s VAT. Quoting Risdon’s own words: “No payments whatsoever were made against the quarters ending 02/02; 05/02; 08/02 and 11/02.” Again, moneys that he had received from his VAT supplies and which he was supposed to pass on to the Customs and Excise were simply siphoned off.

In a nutshell, there was a total deficiency in respect of The Circle Squared of £137,141 and of £138,414 in respect of Glasir.

All of which is entirely consistent with Risdon's former business partner's descriptions of his business practices, as you will see for yourself, Tim.

In fact, what is so amazing is not that Risdon was simply disqualified but that he didn’t go to jail as well. You may speculate as to why.

One can only marvel at Risdon’s hypocrisy. Anyone with a past like Risdon’s and even an ounce of self-awareness or, frankly, honesty, would have hesitated before setting themselves up as a moral arbiter or, at the very least, would have come entirely clean in their ‘explanations’ instead of compounding their dishonesty by concealing entire tracts of their history and coming up with such an array of ludicrous excuses.

But not our Norman.

We repeat our challenge to Risdon to post the legal correspondence in respect of the libel action against him. If he thought this one through he would realise that, if what he is saying about that libel action is true, then it is only a matter of time before that material will make its way into the public record in any case. He may as well disclose it now, therefore. As we’ve said before, what’s the betting that both sets of lawyers will have asked Risdon for evidence to back up his claims, and what’s the betting that Risdon, as usual, will have failed to provide anything.

A further challenge for Risdon as a result of further investigations:

Let him provide an ‘explanation’ in respect of an armed robbery for which he was tried in Scotland.

Interesting remark from the previous blogger about Risdon's grassing history. A line of enquiry worth pursuing. So let him also confirm or deny whether, as well as being a registered informer for the police, he is also an informer for any other agencies.

As before, let him post the answers before someone else does.

Posted by: trucker | Mar 10, 2008 10:07:10 AM

I sell a rat!

Posted by: james conway | Mar 12, 2008 10:49:58 PM

I smell a rat!

Posted by: james conway | Mar 12, 2008 10:50:07 PM

Post a comment

Well, Tim, we have obtained the copies of the legal correspondence relating to DG’s legal action against Peter Risdon. (You can get a copy yourself by telephoning DG’s lawyers and they’ll have no objection because their letters were all open, unlike Risdon’s solicitors’, a number of which were ‘Without Prejudice’).

Remember the story so far:-

Risdon created a posting entitled “Darius Guppy.” In that posting he made a number of self-evidently ludicrous allegations including one that he had a photograph of DG emerging from his house on the morning of his arrest wearing sunglasses (despite the fact that the arrest had occurred in the early hours of the morning when it was dark and that there was no mention of the supposed sunglasses in the custody records). But the most serious allegation was that DG had trashed his car, arranging for it to be covered in paint stripper and then telephoning him afterwards to claim responsibility.

He felt like someone wielding a “blunderbuss” against a child armed only with a “pea-shooter” and, moreover, he had “mountains” of evidence against DG, including proof of his guilt in relation to the supposed paint stripper attack in the form of a police investigation that had occurred and also a BT complaints department investigation that had “successfully traced” the call to DG.

At this point DG, a man who, unlike Risdon, clearly prefers action to talk, launched libel proceedings against Risdon.

Risdon then created a second posting entitled “libel news” in which he repeated the original allegation and compounded matters by adding yet further palpably silly accusations. This time DG had even bugged the Prosecution’s rooms at his trial!

No! Libel proceedings or not, the accusations stand! he thundered.

Freeborn John had spoken.

And the world of men…Trembled.

Well, and you really didn’t need the gift of second sight to anticipate it, the legal correspondence centres on attempts to get Risdon to produce his “blunderbuss”- type evidence and, as always with Peter Risdon, no such evidence is forthcoming.

In short, he is caught lying, yet again.

To cut a long story short, Tim, Risdon has been very quickly obliged to withdraw his postings, to undertake not to repeat those allegations and to make a donation to a charity of DG’s choice.

Peter Risdon’s humiliation is complete.

(Although he can look forward to yet further embarrassment when our increasingly large dossier, which includes the legal correspondence, is finally posted).

To use one of his favourite expressions – he picked a fight and lost.

Admit it, Tim, the man is a walking, breathing, living DISASTER area. Everything he touches turns to dust.

But most damaging of all for him in all of this has been his evident, warped and self-destructive obsession with DG, an obsession that has blinded him and drained him of any sense of judgement.

Remember his IP address theories? Remember his Wikipedia conspiracies? Well, apart from his obviously poor knowledge of geography, confusing, as we have already pointed out, Pretoria with Cape Town and the Middle East, there is also the question of how IP addresses actually work, a fact that is known to our Norman but which, in his typically dishonest style, he chose to overlook when outlining his conspiracy theories.

Now we really don’t want to sound anything like Risdon, heaven forbid, but even the most superficial research indicates that there are things such as ‘dynamic’ and ‘static’ IP addresses and that the former, which apply in this case, can incorporate literally millions of users. Again, hardly “blunderbuss”- type evidence, is it Tim?

None of this matters remotely of course and we genuinely don’t “give a shit” about Risdon’s theories concerning a website that can hardly be considered a reliable source of information in any case, but the important point here is what all of this reveals about the workings of a genuinely obsessed and twisted mind. For, again, the most superficial glance at DG’s entry in the site in question shows in the ‘history’ section literally hundreds and hundreds of entries and edits going back many years. Just think what a perverse and utterly tortured personality is required to sift through all of these entries, checking their IP addresses, one by one, only to formulate a theory that at its most merely suggests that one of millions of possible individuals once wrote something positive about DG.

The man is, frankly, an embarrassment.

What has the dialogue on this blog shown, therefore, Tim?

- Just how blinded by his obsession Risdon has become, compelling him to fall into all manner of traps and to make a total fool of himself.
- That Peter Risdon is a man of hot air, rather than action. (Incidentally, a recent Google search on DG brought up the following link:
www.biographyonline.net/politicians/boris-johnson.html, where the website in question has been forced to retract a false allegation against DG - yet further evidence, as if any were required, that DG, unlike Risdon, is ready to “put up”, as you put it so well, Tim).
- That Risdon is a pathological fantasist and liar.
- That anyone can write literally anything about anyone else on the net. We could have done exactly the same thing about Risdon, for example, inventing all manner of accusations. Now, one could just about understand such behaviour on the part of a teenage girl posting catty comments on Facebook, but from a man in his late forties who wishes so desperately to be taken seriously as a political and moral pundit?
- That one should never make a threat unless one means to see it through.
- That far from writing “well”, as you once put it rather generously, Risdon cannot construct even the most basic argument and underpin it with logic. Look at his utterly sad website again, Tim. His comments on Islam, to focus on only one example, are so obviously in bad faith and made on the basis of no research whatsoever that they are genuinely risible. The whole website is nothing short of juvenile.
- That Peter Risdon has only one available course by which to salvage any form of dignity: if he has a problem with someone then instead of waffling about it on the web in terms that make him look such a fool, let him knock on that person’s door and express his grievances face to face. To date he has consistently refused to meet this challenge. In short, to emerge with even an ayota of pride, for the first time in his life Peter Risdon will have to – be a man.

Finally, we end with Peter Risdon’s own words.

Remember his original ‘explanation’ posting and how he ended it so pompously, Tim?

Thinking he is addressing DG, he wrote:

“Instead, I prefer to let this (his ‘explanation’) stand, as a monument to your vanity, stupidity and arrogance.”

Well, in case the penny still hasn’t dropped for the slow learner, let us spell it out for him:

No, Risdon, you have failed yet again to realise the irony of your own words, for it is in fact WE who will be copying this exchange and posting it along with the other evidence against YOU, as a monument to YOUR vanity, YOUR stupidity and YOUR arrogance.

Good luck, Tim.

Posted by: trucker | May 1, 2008 3:00:18 PM

Back to Top up arrow


This is a long document and so for ease of reference certain salient remarks have been highlighted. Frequently, comments made by Peter Risdon are shown to be outright lies, or flatly contradicted by the evidence or even contradicted by comments which Risdon himself has made in different contexts.
While the dialogue may be considered lop-sided in that the comments from Risdon’s detractors are much longer than Risdon’s own, it should be borne in mind that Risdon frequently refers – sometimes using links – to postings he has made on his own website. When, therefore, the thousands of words on this subject written by Risdon on his site are taken into account, the dialogue is more evenly weighted between the contributors.
The difficulty, however, is that certain of the pages referred to by Peter Risdon in this exhibit have since been deleted by him owing to the legal proceedings that were brought against him by DG (See
Exhibit 53)
Nevertheless, the gist of what Risdon has said in these now deleted pages and elsewhere is easily inferred by a reading of this particular exhibit.
These comments should therefore be seen as referring to the ‘dialogue’ in its entirety, incorporating, as stated, those postings that Risdon has now been forced to remove.
This ‘dialogue’ reveals a number of Risdon’s character traits that have been observed by many who have known him, whether former friends, family members, work associates and so on:

  1. Publicity seeking/need to be the centre of attention: In this regard, the reader should refer to the section in the Exhibit above where Risdon writes the following excrutiating words: “All you'll achieve… is to continue to raise my profile. Carry on, though. It's working well for me.” (our emphasis).This is a highly revealing comment. It explains the nature of Risdon’s Freeborn John blog and his belief in his role as a defender of the people’s right to freedom of expression. It explains why even the press got fed up with his publicity-seeking, the Sunday Times referring to him as the “rangy Australian with a penchant for self-publicity” and the Sun as a man who “would sell his own mother.” (See Exhibit 56, where he sells his story to the News of the World). It explains why he enjoyed giving evidence so much, why he banged on every door in Fleet Street prior to and after the trial and why he has sought to benefit from the Johnson Tapes which he obtained under such dishonourable circumstances. It also explains his desperate and genuinely sad need for validation as evidenced in claims that he once met Robert de Niro, that he corresponded with Lord Harris of High Cross, his ludicrous claim to have single-handedly “broken the UK Opticians’ monopoly” (See Exhibit 60) and his invented claim to have graduated from St. Andrew’s University (See Exhibit 61).
  2. Hypocrisy: Risdon refers to the “now disgraced Clive Goodman”, an individual who went to jail for doing no more than what Risdon himself had done but for which he had been spared prison by virtue of being a police informer. Risdon refers to others as being “sock puppets” – a claim which, coming from a man who regularly posts admiring comments to himself on his own website, often using female aliases, sounds a little rich. As we have seen, there is no doubt that Risdon is also ‘Unforgiven’, the person who wrote the ‘review’ of DG’s book on Amazon.com. (See also Exhibit 58, where he uses the pseudonym “Two Zero"). Risdon writes disparagingly about DG, suggesting that he is now a tax exile while failing to reveal that he had systematically defrauded the UK Revenue, leading to his dismissal as a company director. (See Exhibits 50 and Exhibit 51) Risdon refers to DG as a ‘career criminal’ without the slightest piece of evidence in support, and this coming from a man whose entire life has involved some form of petty criminality. His stance of moral lecturer in his website is Daily Mail – like in its hypocrisy. Likewise he advocates freedom of expression, transparency and resistance to an increasingly oppressive state, while being an informer for the very agencies of the state he decries, an avid censor when it comes to covering up his own seedy past, and an advocate of the very measures normal people associate with totalitarian regimes, namely bugging peoples’ phones. One blogger posts comments on Risdon’s website on three occasions accusing him of being a supergrass. The champion of freedom of expression deletes his comments. The list is endless and most recently includes the revelation that Peter Risdon, the champion of freedom of expression, is in fact a blogger for the English Defence League - an organisation with links to mass murderer Anders Breivik - who writes as “Peter Pedant” (See Exhibit 63; also Page 8 of http://www.bnp.org.uk/sites/default/files/what_lies_behind_the_english_defence_league_0.pdf
  3. Fundamental Dishonesty: He is caught lying repeatedly, often when what he states in this ‘dialogue’ is compared with what he himself has written or stated in different contexts (such as his Express and Amazon.com ‘reviews’, his police interviews and so on). It is not so much events such as his farcical attempted insurance fraud which prove his dishonesty but more the manner in which Risdon has lied and cheated throughout his life, often where it concerns his own friends and business colleagues. However the person he lies to most often is in fact himself. This accounts for that other salient personality trait of his:
  4. Delusion/Fantasy: In this ‘dialogue’ he writes of having met Robert de Niro and having corresponded with Lord Harris of High Cross, imagining that this will somehow impress us. He would fantasise about a variety of schemes as we learn from his business partner, imagining for example that he will invent a ray gun that can be aimed at windows enabling him to listen to conversations taking place inside buildings. He boasts about bugging DG’s phone and obtaining The Johnson Tapes. In one toe-curling moment he even brags about his ‘profile being raised.’ The very pseudonyms he chooses for himself suggest his capacity for telling stories to himself, names such as ‘Voltaire’ or ‘Freeborn John.’ Risdon projects himself as a very English sort of hero who stands up for the freedoms of the British people. The reality is somewhat different. In this vein his role models are men like Winston Churchill whom he quotes in his site in relation to ‘Mohammedanism’ without realising that such people - having gone to the kinds of public schools and Universities which he claimed, dishonestly, to have attended – were imbued with a set of codes that included never being a teacher’s pet and never ‘sneaking’ (grassing). Such people would have loathed the Risdon type. He shows himself to be full of hot air, writing about how he considered suing DG for libel, only to beat a humiliating retreat when, very shortly after making this comment, DG initiates proceedings against him.
  5. Cowardice: Risdon is challenged repeatedly to make good his threats to DG and to follow up his talk with some action. His instinctive reaction at the first whiff of gun powder is to run to teacher (the police) with a patently invented story about his car being trashed by DG. Elsewhere, the best he can do is to write: “I've pointed a couple of journalists to this thread, most recently someone from the BBC…” He blames others for his own failings, unwilling to look in the mirror and see the ugliness. His former business partner, ‘Tom’ (BMcL) is “an old armed robber”; some “charming fellows” in South Africa were responsible for him entering a bank with a false passport in what was in fact an obvious attempt by him to commit an insurance fraud involving a large uncut diamond; DG and BM are blamed for duping – and later ‘framing’ – him with respect to his involvement in their New York heist; the collapse of two companies of which he was a director and his prosecution by the DTI as a result are the fault of another director, not him, who was “responsible for financial admin.”
  6. Obsessiveness: Peter Risdon’s obsession with DG is immediately obvious. He comes up with a series of convoluted conspiracy theories that only prove what a weirdo he is, to the extent that he trawls through hundreds of entries in a Wikipedia article concerning DG, comparing their ‘IP address’ one by one, only to come up with a theory that in fact proves very little. He writes of “not giving a shit” about the evidence that is emerging about him on the net. In fact his various ‘reviews’, postings, ‘explanations’ and allegations against DG show just how much he ‘gives a shit.’ Indeed he cares so much that he posts a page on his website entitled “Darius Guppy” containing allegations so patently absurd that he is forced when proceedings are commenced against him to discontinue that page. Among those allegations are a claim that he has tape recordings which he secretly made of DG and “mountains” of other evidence – despite showing nothing when challenged to do so. He continues in typically delusional terms: “I have been showing considerable balance and restraint …Whether or not I continue to show restraint depends how irritated I get.” In fact, the opposite is clearly the case. As the reader will gather from the evidence contained in this site, much of that evidence could have been posted over fifteen years ago. The fact that it has not been until this date shows where the real restraint has been located.

Back to Top up arrow

[Main] [The Fantasy] [The Facts] [Exhibits] [Conclusion]