Essex Police to probe historic child sex establishment ‘cover-up’ allegations

8 March 2016 By Charles Thomson


Police Commissioner Nick Alston and Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh have jointly announced the historic abuse probe.


ESSEX Police has announced an investigation into alleged child sex abuse in the 1980s and 1990s, following a year-long Yellow Advertiser investigation into claims of an establishment cover-up.

The probe is being led by Chief Constable Stephen Kavanagh, who was introduced to three whistleblowers last month during a meeting the YA helped to arrange.

The Chief Constable and Essex Police Commissioner Nick Alston will release a formal statement later today outlining the nature and scale of the investigation into abuse involving as many as 60 youngsters in Shoebury and other parts of Essex.

Mr Alston thanked the YA for its ’important’ role in the investigation.

He said: “You have helped us into this place and I am grateful for it.”

Officers will investigate claims that police and civil servants failed to properly investigate suspected paedophiles or adequately protect alleged victims during the 1980s and 90s. They will also more urgently look into whether known victims remain at risk today as a result of past failures.

Three whistleblowers were put in touch with Essex Police following a series of YA meetings, where they were able to describe an alleged ’pattern of institutional abuse’ across the county.

They came forward after the YA published a series of exclusive reports about alleged historic abuse.

The allegations have been made by a retired NHS manager, a serving probation officer and the former manager of a child sex abuse treatment centre.

Mr Alston described the claims as ’chilling’.

He said police would have to test the whistleblowers’ accounts, but commented: “It’s an overwhelmingly credible scenario. The circumstantial evidence is apparently strong.”

In a statement confirming the investigation, due to be published later this morning, Essex Police said: “At the meeting, serious concerns were raised about alleged sexual offences committed against children, particularly boys in local authority or foster care, during the 1980s and 1990s.

“Further deep concerns were raised about the safeguarding and support provided for a large number of young people who may have been victims of serious abuse.

“In the relevant period there were a number of investigations and prosecutions, and two convictions were secured.

“However, the concern of these professionals, who were working in the area at the time, was that those investigations may not have been sufficiently thorough.”

Mr Alston said: “Without the Yellow Advertiser having had the confidence to build that relationship with those professionals, and to trust me to do the right thing here, we would not be making this announcement. So thank you for taking the initiative on this. Thank you for trusting us.”




One Response to “Essex Police to probe historic child sex establishment ‘cover-up’ allegations”

  1. Men Scryfa says:

    “ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A palpable sense of shock rippled through a courtroom here on Wednesday morning when the former editor in chief of was shown in a videotaped deposition suggesting that when it comes to the newsworthiness of celebrities’ sex videos, children more than 4 years old are fair game.

    The former editor, Albert J. Daulerio, a defendant in an invasion-of-privacy lawsuit brought by the retired wrestler Hulk Hogan, made the comment under questioning by a plaintiff’s lawyer, who had asked him where he drew the line when it came to posting videos of people having sex.

    Sign Up For NYT Now’s Morning Briefing Newsletter

    “Can you imagine a situation where a celebrity sex tape would not be newsworthy?” asked the lawyer, Douglas E. Mirell.

    “If they were a child,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

    “Under what age?” the lawyer pressed.


    The exchange took place during depositions taken last year in advance of the trial that began on Monday in the suit by the retired wrestler, known in the proceedings by his legal name, Terry G. Bollea, against Gawker Media, its founder, Nick Denton, Mr. Daulerio and others.

    Mr. Bollea is seeking $100 million in damages, saying that amounts to the harm he suffered after Gawker’s posting in 2012 of a secretly recorded video showing him having sex with a friend’s wife.

    The case is prompting significant questions about how far First Amendment rights stretch in an era when the unregulated Internet is ripe for abuse by anyone with a computer keyboard.

    In addition, testimony this week by Mr. Daulerio and other current and former members of Gawker’s staff has raised a curtain on the culture of the website and others like it that traffic in salacious fare in an effort to gain readers.

    Asked whether sex sells, Mr. Daulerio replied, “I’m sure.”

    In such a culture, he went on, it was “pretty standard operating procedure” to seize upon and publish photographs and videos of celebrities in compromising or intimate situations, regardless of whether the celebrity might object or be embarrassed. Mr. Daulerio conceded that no such consideration guided Gawker’s publication of lewd images of the former Green Bay Packers quarterback Brett Favre or of photographs of a topless Duchess of Cambridge.

    “She’s a public figure, and those pictures were published elsewhere,” Mr. Daulerio said, referring to Prince William’s wife. He acknowledged that there had been no discussion in the Gawker newsroom at the time whether the publication of the pictures constituted an invasion of the former Kate Middleton’s privacy.

    Similar thinking, Mr. Daulerio said, dictated the site’s handling of the video of Hulk Hogan, which he noted had been provided anonymously to him in the mail and for which no money had changed hands.

    “I was very enthusiastic about writing about it,” Mr. Daulerio said. He explained that he had “enjoyed watching the video” and was eager to attach his commentary alongside it on the site.

    “I found it very amusing,” he said. “I thought it was newsworthy, and it was something that was worth publishing.”

    In response to a question from Mr. Mirell, the defendant said that neither he nor anyone else at Gawker had made any attempt to contact Mr. Bollea to ask him whether he was in fact the man in the grainy video, and how he felt about Gawker’s intention of publishing it.

    “You didn’t really care, did you?” Mr. Mirell suggested.

    “No,” Mr. Daulerio said.

    A moment later, after an objection from a lawyer for Gawker, Mr. Mirell persisted. “So it’s fair to say that whether he suffered emotional distress or not, that played no part in your decision whether or what to publish,” he suggested.

    “Correct,” Mr. Daulerio replied.

    Videotaped testimony by his boss, Mr. Denton, was also shown to the jury, later in the day, even though both men were sitting behind their lawyers in the courtroom. The plaintiffs’ use of taped depositions at this early stage of the trial seemed intended to stave off cross-examinations by the defense, which might lessen the impact of their words on the videos. Both defendants, however, are on their own legal team’s list of witnesses, to be called to the stand when it is the defense’s turn to present evidence at the trial.

    Under questioning in the deposition, recorded in October 2013, Mr. Denton said that, contrary to Mr. Daulerio’s feelings, he had not been “very excited” by news that Gawker had received a video showing Hulk Hogan having sex with a woman on a four-poster bed. “We all have sex,” Mr. Denton said, noting that he preferred stories that had “some kind of meaning.”

    Nevertheless, Mr. Denton did not impede the video’s publication, although he advised his editor “not to put up the whole tape.” A video editor cut it to one minute and 41 seconds, from roughly 30 minutes.

    Asked whether he or his staff had looked into the tape’s provenance, Mr. Denton demurred. “We can’t always determine the circumstances in which a film was made,” he said.

    A letter from a lawyer for Mr. Bollea, asking Gawker to take down the video shortly after it had been posted, “wasn’t persuasive,” Mr. Denton said. “We continued to believe in its newsworthiness.”

    The video remained on the site for about six months, until a court order precipitated its removal. Lawyers for Mr. Bollea said they had no intention of showing the tape to the jury during the trial.”

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.