The Stuart Collier Hack Story That So Riled Up Darius Guppy
The story that left Stuart Collier on the run for a decade
The insights presented in this investigative journal entry are drawn from extensive evidence obtained during the Collier Exposed investigation. This includes Dictaphone recordings, personal notebooks, and loose-leaf files directly linked to our target, Stuart Collier. These materials—comprising Stuart Collier’s own notes and voice recordings—provide an unequivocal foundation for the conclusions presented below. They reveal that Stuart Collier’s intent was to craft a deliberate smear piece, and that, driven by fear, he ensured his name was not attributed to the final publication.
Guppygate came to light, it was a tape-recording that includes Boris Johnson being asked to supply the private telephone number and address of a Murdoch gutter journo called Stuart Collier who is also the target of this Collier Exposed investigative project. Darius Guppy was surreptitiously recorded by his former associate, Peter Risdon, seeking retribution against Stuart Collier after finding out that he was snooping around his young partner, Patricia Holder and other family members and was compiling a tabloid dossier to publish an unsavoury smear story on his love. Stuart Collier found out about this and other threats to his safety and went to ground. The smear story he was too afraid to publish under his own name was later put to print by a tabloid associate, Geoff Sutton, in the Daily Mirror in 1993 when Darius Guppy was heavily distracted in his own prosecution by the law.
Read Stuart Collier’s revised story to include Darius Guppy and Patricia Holder’s marriage and his by then Fraud conviction for his stagged New York gem heist as part of and insurance job against Lloyd’s and printed in 1993, three years after Stuart Collier’s snooping.
Breaking down of the negative or insidious aspersions and accusations in this original Stuart Collier compiled hack story it is easy to understand the ire of Darius Guppy. Geoff Sutton, uses several techniques to imply questionable character, moral flaws, or suspicious motives in Darius Guppy, Patricia Guppy (née Holder), and Gary Pearn. We will outline these aspersions for each individual instance below.
Darius Guppy
"Yuppie conman" – This phrase immediately paints Guppy as both untrustworthy and part of a morally questionable social class. "Yuppie" connotes a wealthy, often self-indulgent lifestyle focused on materialism, while "conman" solidifies him as a criminal figure. This choice of words frames Guppy as a morally corrupt character whose wealth and privilege are tainted by dishonesty.
Facing jail for a "£1.8 million gems swindle" – The article repeatedly highlights the value of Guppy’s alleged crime, underlining his supposed greed and suggesting a sense of grandiosity in his criminal endeavours. The emphasis on "gems swindle" evokes images of high-stakes, luxurious crime, casting Guppy as a glamorous yet morally bankrupt figure.
"Bizarre friendship" with Gary Pearn – The word "bizarre" implies that there is something unusual or even unsavoury about Guppy’s relationship with Pearn, a nightclub bouncer with a rough background. The article presents this friendship as suspicious or unseemly, perhaps suggesting that Guppy has connections that undermine his elite, "Old Etonian" image.
Paid a "£5,000 surety" to bail out his wife’s ex-lover – This detail about Guppy putting up money for Pearn’s bail subtly implies either a reckless or overly permissive nature. By emphasising that he financially supported Pearn despite the latter’s criminal accusations, the article suggests that Guppy may be complicit in or at least tolerant of morally questionable associations.
Mention of "Old Etonian" background and "best pal of Princess Di’s brother" – The reference to Guppy’s prestigious education and aristocratic connections serves a dual purpose: it underscores his privileged status while subtly casting him as out of touch with normal societal rules. The article uses these details to hint at elitism and entitlement, implying that Guppy’s wealth and background have enabled, rather than prevented, his criminal behaviour.
Patricia Guppy (née Holder)
Described as a "playgirl" – This term carries connotations of superficiality and irresponsibility, positioning Patricia as someone who values glamour, attention, and the "high life" over stability or moral integrity. It subtly suggests that she may have used her relationships for social climbing.
"Rapidly scaled the social ladder" – This phrase implies that Patricia's rise in social status was unusually swift, hinting that it might have been achieved through manipulative or morally ambiguous means. This choice of words suggests an opportunistic streak and raises questions about her sincerity in relationships.
"Wild affair" with Gary Pearn – The mention of a "wild affair" frames Patricia as promiscuous and impetuous. This language casts doubt on her loyalty and implies a history of reckless or unrestrained behaviour, particularly when juxtaposed with her later marriage to an aristocrat’s friend.
"Jet-setting lifestyle" funded by Patricia – The mention of her taking Gary on expensive holidays to "Florida, Paris, and the Canary Islands" implies a degree of extravagance and irresponsibility. It suggests that Patricia enjoyed flaunting her wealth and status, raising questions about her priorities and values.
"Loved showing off her body" – This statement, along with the topless photo mentioned, implies vanity and immodesty. Such phrasing encourages the reader to view her as morally lax and attention-seeking, casting aspersions on her character in a way that feels sensationalist.
"Ruthless" treatment of her first husband – By stating that Patricia was "ruthless" towards her first husband, Ian McLelland, the article paints her as cold and callous. This phrasing implies that she was willing to sacrifice long-term relationships for self-serving purposes, reinforcing the image of a social climber.
Engagement announcement as a “shock” – The mention that Gary felt "shocked" after seeing her engagement to Darius Guppy highlights Patricia’s fickleness or duplicity, as if she led Gary on while pursuing an advantageous marriage. This detail implies that Patricia was manipulating her relationships, leaving a trail of emotional damage.
Gary Pearn
"Geordie jack-the-lad" – This phrase characterises Gary as a rough, working-class individual with a possibly rowdy or unpolished nature. While it doesn’t directly accuse him of wrongdoing, it subtly positions him as a foil to Guppy’s aristocratic background, implying a mismatch or social incongruity that could reflect poorly on all involved.
Accusation of "supplying the drug ecstasy" – By mentioning that Pearn was accused of drug-related criminal activity, the article paints him as a likely criminal, even if he denies it. This accusation tarnishes his character and makes him appear morally compromised, while simultaneously questioning Patricia’s judgement in associating with him.
"Jobless" status – The article describes Gary as "jobless," a detail that implies instability or irresponsibility. This further distances him from respectability and reinforces the idea that Patricia’s relationships are morally questionable.
Described as a beneficiary of Patricia’s "jet-setting lifestyle" – By highlighting that Patricia funded Gary’s travel and lifestyle, the article hints at a transactional nature in their relationship. It implies that Gary may have been willing to take advantage of her generosity, portraying him as someone potentially exploitative or dependent.
“Rough-and-ready” lifestyle – Gary’s lifestyle is portrayed as rough and working-class, and his social circle as unsophisticated. The reference to his “rough-and-ready clubs” implies a sense of grit or crudeness that contrasts sharply with Guppy’s aristocratic connections, suggesting a dissonance that subtly condemns both men by association.
Overall Narrative and Implications
The article's framing seems intentionally designed to portray each individual in a morally ambiguous or outright negative light:
Sensationalist language: Terms like "playgirl," "ruthless," and "bizarre friendship" evoke scandal and paint a portrait of characters who operate outside typical moral boundaries.
Class implications: By contrasting Patricia’s working-class origins and Gary’s "Geordie jack-the-lad" character with Darius’s "Old Etonian" background, the article highlights the class disparities between them, casting an uncomfortable light on their relationships as inappropriate or socially transgressive.
Voyeuristic details: The mention of topless photos, tattoos, and the "wild affair" add a titillating aspect that invites judgement, even if these details are not directly relevant to the individuals' moral character.
Implied exploitation and manipulation: The article subtly suggests that Patricia may have used her relationships for social advancement, while Gary benefited financially from Patricia’s generosity. This implication encourages the reader to view both characters as self-interested or opportunistic.
In summary, the Stuart Collier compiled hack piece published in the Mirror under his tabloid associate Geoff Sutton’s name, is a thinly veiled character assassination attempt typical of the gutter press. Each individual is portrayed with carefully crafted negative imagery, and the overall narrative insinuates that they are morally compromised, if not outright corrupt. By using language that highlights criminality, moral ambiguity, class incongruity, and hints of scandal, the piece constructs a judgemental narrative that leaves little room for the individuals to be viewed sympathetically.
Stuart Collier’s Original Hack Piece on Darrius Guppy’s Partner, Patricia Holder and the Instigation of Guppygate
Published in the Daily Mirror on Monday the 15th of February 1993 by Geoff Sutton:
£1.8m conman and wife's ex-lover are pals
THE LIKELY LASS WHO FACES LIFE WITHOUT YUPPIE GUPPY
Playful Trish loved nights on the town
EXCLUSIVE
BY GEOFF SUTTON
YUPPIE conman Darius Guppy’s wife was revealed yesterday as a playgirl who rapidly scaled the social ladder.
Patricia Guppy, 24, had a wild affair with nightclub bouncer Gary Pearn before marrying the best pal of Princess Di’s brother Earl Spencer.
A bizarre friendship began between the conman facing jail for a £1.8 million gems swindle — and Geordie jack-the-lad.
And Old Etonian Guppy came to Gary’s aid when the doorman was remanded in jail accused of supplying the drug ecstasy. He put up a £5,000 surety to free his wife’s ex-boyfriend. A police file details the jet-setting lifestyle of Oxford-educated Darius and Patricia Holder, known to her friends as “Trish.”
Factory
Patricia Holder went straight from working in a Sunderland clothing factory to becoming the wife of a toff in just five years.
During her remarkable rise, she flew Gary to Florida, Paris, and the Canary Islands for holidays.
One beach snap taken on Gran Canaria three years ago showed her topless with him and another man.
Gary, 37, said: “She just loved showing off her body. She paid for me to go on holiday and we had a fantastic time.”
He added: “When I first met her she had just got married to her childhood sweetheart Ian McLelland.
“But she didn’t hesitate to be unfaithful to him.
“She was ruthless to Ian but was never down or miserable. She was a star in Sunderland.”
But the town was not big enough for Patricia. She headed for the bright lights of London.
Gary, now jobless, said Patricia asked him to marry her several times. But he got a shock after seeing her at Newcastle station one day.
He said: “We kissed each other. Next morning, all the lads were laughing and pointing at the paper.
“There was an announcement of her engagement to Darius. I went up the wall.”
After a frosty tug-of-love, Guppy and Gary became firm friends.
Rough
“Lord Spencer and Darius loved our rough-and-ready clubs — and all my friends loved them. They were a great contrast, these toffs and my Geordie mates.”
Gary — who went to Guppy’s wedding — denies conspiracy to supply a drug and will fight his case in May.
He said: “Darius and Patricia didn’t hesitate to help me. I will never forget their kindness.”
Geoff Sutton and his long-time associate Stuart Collier—two names firmly entrenched in the grubby underbelly of 1980s and 90s British tabloid journalism. Together, they were swimming in Fleet Street’s ugliest traditions, conjuring sensational headlines while burying their own skeletons. Sutton’s published and attempted takedown of Patricia Guppy, Darius Guppy, and Gary Pearn reeks of hypocrisy, and Stuart Collier’s fingerprints are never far from these ethically dubious exploits. These two thrived in an industry where betrayal, scandal, and fabrication were the currency, all while they crafted a veneer of moral superiority.
The scathing critique of Patricia as a “playgirl” and her “ruthless” ambition feels particularly rich coming from Stuart Collier and Geoff Sutton who were a known fixture in Soho’s shadowy nightlife during the 80s, indulging in sordid excesses that rival anything they decried in print. While they publicly lambasted others’ “wild” lifestyles, they built their careers with calculated betrayals, shameless pandering to editors, and sordid backroom deals. Their own nights out were less about journalism and more about maintaining their foothold in Fleet Street’s gutter circles.
Geoff Sutton and Stuart Collier’s “journalistic” methods relied on innuendo and character assassination, dressing up baseless accusations in sensationalist language. The published disdain for Darius Guppy’s generosity in bailing out a friend feels laughable when both he and Stuart Collier have benefited from their own network of sordid allies and fraternity members, quietly smoothing over their missteps. While Guppy’s actions were made public, Sutton and Stuart Collier’s bailouts happened in the shadows, favour for favour, ensuring their own scandals never reached the pages of the tabloids they wrote for.
Their hypocrisy doesn’t stop at their subjects. Both men avoided writing about their industry benefactors or the old-money elite, preferring to target the “nouveau riche” or public figures who couldn’t fight back. While Sutton sneers at Guppy’s “bizarre friendships,” it’s an open secret that he and Stuart Collier cultivated their own unsavoury connections. Fleet Street insiders still whisper about deals brokered in dimly lit pubs and hideout digs, where loyalty was a commodity and integrity was a joke.
Sutton’s attack, like much of his and Stuart Collier’s work, is less about exposing truth and more about selling a headline, no matter the cost. Their judgemental tone masks a career built on betrayal, their moral outrage a performance to distract from their own misdeeds. If Sutton and Stuart Collier are the judges, then Fleet Street was less a court of truth and more a playground for their brand of self-serving scandal-mongering. Their true legacy lies not in their exclusives but in the hypocrisy that drips from every word they wrote.
Geoff Sutton’s Right of Reply
As part of our process, we reached out to Geoff Sutton at his private email, providing a secure link to this journal entry for review before publication. True to form, Sutton offered a few carefully worded responses:
"I knew and worked with Stuart Collier briefly when I first started doing freelance shifts on the Daily Mail, when he worked on the Night News Desk in the early to mid-1980s."
"The story that you are referring to is from more than three decades ago."
"It involved the tried and tested methods of shoe leather, knocking on doors and interviewing the person quoted in the story."
"I really didn't know Stuart Collier very well at all."
Sutton’s answers are as distant as they are calculated, painting a picture of vague associations and procedural platitudes. He steered clear of addressing the deeper implications of Stuart Collier’s methods—or his own involvement in the murky tabloid grind of the era.
But what really stands out is what Sutton didn’t say. His refusal to engage with pointed questions about his old colleague smacks of an unspoken rule among Fleet Street veterans: never dob on your own. Call it professional loyalty or a mutual pact of silence, but it’s clear that Sutton isn’t willing to break ranks.
That said, Sutton’s reluctance does little to slow us down. We’ve pieced together far more than we’re letting on here. The dots are connected, and the bigger picture is coming into focus. Stay sharp, readers—there’s more to come.