The Curious Case of Tony Harris and the Hollow Pond Fires of 2013.

Did Tony Harris Witness the 2013 Hollow Pond Fires? The Reasonable Grounds for Matt Taylor’s Conclusion.

Matt Taylor has faced criticism for linking the 2013 Hollow Pond fires with Tony Harris, despite Harris's categorical denial that the "Tony Harris" mentioned as the sole witness in a Guardian newspaper article was him. However, there are reasonable grounds for Taylor’s conclusion, based on circumstantial evidence and background information on Tony Harris—who is also known as Tony Quigley and Harry Munker.

AI Depiction of Tony Harris

1. The Walthamstow Connection

The Guardian article reports that a man named Tony Harris, aged 34 at the time, was the sole witness to the Hollow Pond fires in Walthamstow. This location is the same London suburb where Tony Quigley (aka Tony Harris) resides. Given that Tony Quigley is currently in his mid-40s, the age given in the article aligns perfectly with his timeline. This is a significant clue that suggests a strong likelihood that the witness and the YouTuber are the same person.

2. The Arsonist Past of Tony Quigley

One of the most compelling reasons for the connection is Tony Quigley’s criminal record. He has a conviction for arson after setting fire to his ex-girlfriend’s car following their breakup. This past behavior establishes a precedent for Quigley being involved with fires. The Guardian article mentions that the 2013 Hollow Pond fires were suspected to be acts of arson, which raises the question: was Tony Harris a mere witness, or did he have more knowledge about the cause of the fire than he let on?

3. The Mouse’s Endorsement

Another key point is that "The Mouse," a well-known figure in this online circle, was the one who initially introduced the Guardian article to the audience. By doing so, The Mouse himself indicated that he believed the Tony Harris in the article was the same Tony Harris active on YouTube today. If Taylor is being criticised for making the connection, then The Mouse should also be subject to the same scrutiny, given that he played a direct role in bringing the article into the conversation.

Conclusion

Given the alignment of name, location, age, and criminal history, Taylor's conclusion was not baseless speculation but a reasoned assumption based on available evidence. While Harris has denied being the individual mentioned in the Guardian article, the circumstantial evidence suggests that Taylor had valid grounds for making the connection. Until further evidence emerges to clarify the truth, the question remains open: Was the Tony Harris from the 2013 Hollow Pond fires the same Tony Harris active on YouTube today?

🚨 Appeal for Information – Seeking Tony Harris from 2013 Hollow Pond Fires Witness Report 🚨

Hello Walthamstow Community,

I am reaching out in search of Tony Harris, the individual named as the sole witness to the 2013 Hollow Pond fires, as reported by The Guardian newspaper. My aim is simple: to establish whether the Tony Harris mentioned in the article is the same individual currently active on YouTube under that name.

To be clear, there are no legal or criminal ramifications for coming forward—this is purely about determining the truth and eliminating any mistaken identity.

As an ex-Royal Military Policeman trained in investigation, I believe in conducting inquiries thoroughly and fairly. If you are Tony Harris or know how to reach him, please get in touch privately so we can clarify this matter.

Your assistance in resolving this will be greatly appreciated. Please share this post to help spread the word.

Thank you,

Matt Taylor

Tony Quigley Responds to Hollow Pond Fire Allegations – But Does His Story Hold Up?

The ongoing dispute between Matt Taylor and Tony Quigley (also known as Tony Harris and Harry Munker) has taken another turn, with Quigley issuing a fresh denial in response to Taylor’s claims that he was the sole witness to the 2013 Hollow Pond fires as reported by The Guardian.

Tony Quigley’s Latest Statement.

Posting online, Quigley dismissed Taylor’s claims as “more nonsense”, stating:

“There's no reports and I didn't get 4 years either. I did state the sentence in a live once and that I was sentenced WITHOUT intent to endanger life. So obviously it wasn't that serious.”

Quigley’s attempt to downplay the severity of his past raises key questions about the nature of his conviction and the legal framework surrounding arson offences in the UK.

What Does the Law Say?

Under UK law, arson is a serious offence with three degrees of severity:

1. First-degree arson – Intent to endanger life, carrying a 10-25 year sentence.

2. Second-degree arson – Damage caused recklessly, carrying a 5-15 year sentence.

3. Third-degree arson – Intentional damage to property or a motor vehicle, carrying a 1-5 year sentence.

By Quigley’s own admission, he was sentenced without intent to endanger life, which would place his crime in the third-degree arson category. This carries a 1-5 year custodial sentence, typically requiring an offender to serve half the sentence before being released.

Contradictions in Quigley’s Statement.

While Quigley argues that “it wasn’t that serious”, the fact that he received a custodial sentence at all contradicts this claim. Courts do not hand out prison time for trivial matters—especially when it comes to arson, a crime that inherently poses a risk to public safety.

Moreover, the absence of available reports does not mean they never existed—just that they may not be publicly accessible. If Quigley wishes to dispute Taylor’s claims entirely, he could present documentation proving the nature of his conviction.

Where Does This Leave the Hollow Pond Fire Allegations?

Taylor’s case linking Quigley to the 2013 Hollow Pond fires hinges on:

• The name match with the Guardian article.

• The age alignment (Tony Harris in the report was 34, which fits Quigley’s timeline).

• The location match (Walthamstow, where Quigley resides).

• Quigley’s proven history of arson-related offences.

While Quigley continues to deny the connection, his contradictory statements about the seriousness of his past crime do little to dispel suspicions. If he was wrongly identified, the easiest way to clear his name would be to help identify the actual Tony Harris from the article—something he has not attempted to do.

The Verdict: Denial or Damage Control?

Tony Quigley’s latest response raises as many questions as it answers. While he insists the allegations are false, his own statements about his criminal history appear misleading at best. If Taylor is wrong, why does Quigley’s past align so closely with the details from the 2013 Hollow Pond fires case?

Until more evidence surfaces, the truth remains in the smoke—but one thing is clear: the fire isn’t going out anytime soon.

Tony Harris Strikes Back: Denial or Deflection?

YouTube commentator and citizen journalist Matt Taylor has been at the centre of a controversy regarding Tony Harris, the man he believes was the sole witness to the 2013 Hollow Pond fires as reported in The Guardian. In a recent post, Harris categorically denied all of Taylor’s claims, dismissing them as fabrications.

Tony Harris Responds

Posting on YouTube, Harris laid out three key rebuttals:

1. No Connection Has Been Established

“You have no actual evidence of where I live and you do not know my date of birth or my real name either. So no real connection has been established.”

Taylor has pointed out that the Tony Harris in The Guardian article was 34 in 2013 and lived in Walthamstow, aligning with the age and location of the Tony Harris active today on YouTube. However, Harris asserts that there is no solid proof linking him to that identity.

2. Denial of Arson Allegations

“I never set fire to my ex’s car and have never done other fires. So there exists no precedent for fires.”

This is a direct contradiction to previous claims that Harris, also known as Tony Quigley and Harry Munker, has a criminal history of arson, including allegedly setting fire to his ex-girlfriend’s car. If this denial is false, it raises serious questions about Harris’s credibility.

3. Disputing The Mouse’s Role

“The Mouse never originally introduced this article, Rebecca posted it on Freddie’s channel about two years ago. Furthermore, The Mouse didn’t indicate it was me.”

Taylor had previously stated that The Mouse was responsible for bringing The Guardian article into the public conversation, implying that The Mouse himself believed the Tony Harris mentioned was the same one active on YouTube today. Harris, however, claims that someone named Rebecca first posted the article, distancing The Mouse from any implied endorsement.

Who’s Telling the Truth?

This dispute comes down to evidence versus denial.

Taylor’s case is based on circumstantial evidence: same name, age, location, and alleged history of arson.

Harris, on the other hand, has denied everything outright but has not provided any counter-evidence beyond his own words.

If Harris was not the witness in the Guardian article, then a simple solution would be for the real Tony Harris from the 2013 report to come forward—an avenue Taylor has actively pursued.

Until then, the question remains: Is Matt Taylor wrong, or is Tony Harris lying?