MAD FREDDIE BEATS UP MAD FRANKIE

from an article in The People 22/9/02
Below is an article that appeared in The People describing a fight between Gangland veterans 'Mad' Frankie Fraser and 'Brown Bread' Freddie Foreman.
The events were relayed by 'onlookers' and an 'underworld source'.
frank's detailed response follows this article.

AGEING mobsters Freddie Foreman and "Mad" Frankie Fraser proved that old habits die hard during a violent PUNCH-UP.
Despite a combined age of 145, they brawled at a cafe in an amazing 1960s-style gangland scrap.
Foreman, 69, laid in to his 76-year-old rival, flashing his fists faster than a pensioner's bus pass. He stunned customers by FLOORING Fraser with a right hook, then DRAGGING him along by his ANKLES.
One onlooker said: "It was a real shocker - Foreman might be nearly 70 but he showed he's still not to be messed with. "It was like a scene from The Krays film, only fast-forwarded 40 years.
"It could have been quite amusing to see two old guys acting like young toughs. But no one was laughing. We all knew who they were."
He added: "Fraser kept shouting 'What have I done?' But Foreman wouldn't listen and just kept on like a man possessed." An underworld source said:
"Freddie has been after him ever since Fraser wrote nasty things about him in a book. "Freddie has always had a good reputation in the crime world. You can't have other villains saying bad things about you."
Foreman, a self-confessed killer and enforcer for The Krays, finally stormed out of the cafe in Maida Vale, West London.
Ex-torturer Fraser, once a henchman for the rival Richardson gang, left by a back exit to avoid any more bloodshed. He refused to comment on the incident.

Frank's Response

LIES, LIES AND MORE LIES
The Fantasy Fight between Freddie Foreman and Frankie Fraser

A Challenge To A Rogue Reporter And The People National Newspaper!!!

I am able to confirm through personal bad experiences that there is truth in the statement that you should 'not believe what you read in newspapers'.

However, despite these personal bad experiences over many years, which were most unpleasant, and often caused serious damage, the lies contained in 'The People' national newspaper article last Sunday, 20th September, 2002, on a fantasy fight between Fred Foreman and myself, has to rank with the worst.

The article, written by a Neil McLeod, is ten paragraphs long and there was at least one LIE in every paragraph - including the headline.

PARAGRAPH 1: There was NO PUNCH-UP! Yes, there was a scuffle.

PARAGRAPH 2: My age is NOT 76 it is close to 79.

PARAGRAPH 3: I was NOT 'laid into'; I was NOT 'floored by a right hook'; I was 'NOT dragged along by the ankles'.

PARAGRAPH 4: "One onlooker said"... There was NO ONLOOKER the cafe was empty of customers.

PARAGRAPH 5: There was 'NO SCENE', as far as I am able to recall, in the Kray film where an unaware man was grabbed when seated, and a short scuffle ensued.

PARAGRAPH 6: Again there was NO UNIDENTIFIED 'ONLOOKER'. The people there were the cafe staff. 'ONLOOKER' is supposed to have said: 'WE'. Who are the 'we'? Surely if it were true there would be one person who would be prepared to stand-up and be identified.

PARAGRAPH 7: There was NO SHOUTING from me, or anyone else.

PARAGRAPH 8: Fred Foreman does NOT have 'a good reputation in the crime world'. There are unanswered questions.

PARAGRAPH 9: Foreman did NOT 'STORM OUT OF THE CAFE'.

PARAGRAPH 10: THERE IS NO BACK EXIT TO THE CAFE! AND THERE WAS NO 'BLOODSHED'!

The lies continue when they say that I refused to comment on the incident.
Neither McLeod or anyone else from 'The People' has asked me for a comment at any time.
Had they called me, and I was not available they would have left a message on my voicemail.
When I phoned 'The People' to set the facts straight they declined to put my side of the story.
I spoke to a member of the editorial team at 'The People' and he carried on with the lies when he said the 'he' in the final paragraph meant Fred Foreman.
That has to be a lie for the reason that the paragraph doesn't make sense if it is meant to refer to Foreman.

The truth is that I was sitting with my girlfriend waiting to have a coffee in an upmarket cafe in Maida Vale before going to a Soho restaurant for an arranged meal, when Fred Foreman came in.
We exchanged courteous acknowledgements.Foreman has never been a friend of mine, and the casual acknowledgement was not unusual.
Fred said, " I didn't expect to see you here," or words to that effect. He then went to the counter presumably to order a take-out, which I have now been told he has done a number of times before. He then exited.

He came back to the cafe soon after unknown to me as I was facing away from the entrance, he grabbed me around the throat. I was startled, but by instinct fought back.
How effective did I fight back? Well, when two well built customers sitting outside came into the cafe and intervened they stood between Fred and I. Fred then slunk away while the two guys were talking to me.

If the McLeod version is true why would Foreman 'storm out of the cafe'? Surely, he would have walked out, pleased with himself.
I went outside and stood there waiting for him to come back. If someone said I was glaring, and fuming with anger then they would not be wrong.
An examination of CCTV cameras prove that I stood outside waiting, and the length of time I stood there.

The writer of the lies, Neil McLeod probably didn't make up the lies they obviously came from Fred Foreman anxious for some publicity, but McLeod put his name to a catalogue of lies, and 'The People' published the lies.
Surely, it is some sort of record to publish an article of ten paragraphs, and to have at least one lie in every paragraph. It has to indicate that the writer is either totally incompetent or is an acute sufferer of mythomania.

It is also means that the newspaper that employs such a low grade reporter has a very poor selection process.
If the purpose of Foreman was not to cash-in on some contrived publicity how come within two hours a highly respected underworld figure called me, and asked if I was all right. I was able to assure him I was.
Someone had to put the word around, and given out the telephone number of the respected underworld person.

If McLeod has respect for his profession how come he did not interview any of the staff of the cafe before writing the rubbish?

How come he did not check that there was no 'back exit'

How come he did not check-up on my physical dimensions and age?

Neil McLeod is a disgrace to the profession of journalism, and should be drummed out of the profession. He is a dangerous person for any newspaper to employ.
How is it possible for a national newspaper as 'The People' unquestionably is, to employ such an incompetent apology for a newspaper reporter? Surely 'The People' makes a demand on its reporters to confirm the details of any story. Or don't they care?

If McLeod wants to back-up his lies then let him accept my challenge.

Mcleod says I weigh 12st.3lbs. - 167 lbs). Another lie, today I weighed at Boots The Chemists, and the print-out registered that my weight is 10st. 3lbs - 143 lbs wearing the same clothes, minus a tie, as I wore when the scuffle took place.

If I weigh more than a welterweight boxer, (10st.7 lbs) then I will donate to my favourite charity £1,000 for every pound in weight over the welterweight limit.
If McLeod is right then he has to donate £1,000 to a charity for every pound in weight that I weigh under 12 stone (to allow a 3lbs leeway).
If the stakes are too high then to accommodate McLeod we will reduce it to £5 for every pound, that is unless 'The People' newspaper wants to accept the challenge and back their reporter.
We could also have £1,000, or a £5, bet on my correct age.

IF 'THE PEOPLE' NEWSPAPER WANTS TO BE SHOWN THAT THEY RESPECT THE TRUTH, AND/OR THEIR READERS, THEN I CHALLENGE THEIR EDITOR TO ARRANGE FOR A DOCTOR, OR DOCTORS, TO EXAMINE ME FOR ANY CUTS OR BRUISES 0N MY BODY OR FACE.

If the McLeod description that 'I was dragged by the ankles' and the rest of his description of my 'beating-up' is true then I would have suffered bruises and cuts, and a doctor would be able to see them without too much trouble.
I have no bruises or cuts, there wasn't even a mark on me, but I can't speak for Fred Foreman.

IT WILL BE VERY INTERESTING TO SEE IF NEIL McLEOD OR 'THE PEOPLE' NEWSPAPER ACCEPT MY CHALLENGES.

Shortly after the incident I walked with my girlfriend to Edgware Road.
Surely if I was in the state described by the writer of lies, McLeod I would have asked the staff in the cafe to dial a taxi for me.

In Edgware Road we hailed a taxi to take us to Berwick Street in Soho. Berwick Street is a market and vehicles cannot drive down the street. So we walked the length of Berwick Street to the restaurant. This was about 45 minutes after the incident
When we finished the meal we walked through Wardour Street, and down to Coventry Street where we caught a taxi to my home.

If the account of my condition by McLeod were true surely the last place I would want to go to would be a public restaurant, and have to walk through busy Soho to get there while wearing bloodstained clothing, and wouldn't my appetite for food have suffered?
And if blood was shed how come my shirt or jacket was not bloodstained, and do you think that a highly respectable restaurant would allow anyone to sit in the restaurant filled with diners wearing bloodstained clothing?

Rather than embarrass other diners they would have, at least, offered a clean shirt or jacket. There was no need to offer fresh clothing because I was not wearing blood stained clothing.
Would I after the meal want to walk again through Soho wearing bloodstained clothing?

During my two walks through Soho people that recognised me said, 'Hello'.
Don't you think that at least one or two would have made a comment had I been wearing bloodstained clothing?

The facts I have quoted will be verified by independent straight witnesses.
Is Neil McLeod able to back-up the lies he has tried to badly portray as the truth, with independent witnesses or any hard facts? I say he won't because there is none.

Time will tell who is telling the truth.