Daily Mail trying to get SKWAWKBOX’s story on abuse-accused Chief Constable

On Monday, the SKWAWKBOX revealed the news that a serving Chief Constable of a UK police force has been accused of complicity in serious child sexual abuse.

The logo of the government’s abuse inquiry

In spite of police interviewing the officer under caution and taking many hours of evidence around nine months ago from a victim who identified the officer, as well as from a survivors’ charity head and a serving MP who supported the victim through the identification process, no action has yet been taken.

And the Chief Constable is still in post.

Within hours of the publication of the article, the Daily Mail contacted charity head and former panel member on the government’s child abuse inquiry, Sharon Evans, in an attempt to persuade her to give them the story – thereby showing the credibility of the reports.

The Mail claimed to know the identity of the victim – and that the National Crime Agency (NCA) is now denying that the officer is under investigation. This is not the same as saying that the officer was not interviewed – and the ‘newspaper’ would not be so interested in pursuing the story if the situation were not still ‘live’.

However, if true this would raise serious concerns given the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service’s promised decision on prosecution has been promised and delayed many times, most recently at the end of July, and is supposedly still to be reached.

But it’s also possible that this claim was merely a ruse by a pushy journalist – who Ms Evans says also attempted to pressure her into revealing more information. If you wanted to extract the name of the accused officer and were not worried about honesty, claiming the police had denied the existence of the case would be a good way to try to manipulate a witness into revealing it, to justify the assertion that there is a case.

So at least one publication is acknowledging that the account has enough substance to merit investigation – enough to demonstrate considerable persistence in its attempts to get the details.

Of course, the irony that the Mail – which has falsely accused the SKWAWKBOX of making false claims – is clearly monitoring this blog’s articles and treating them as credible is not lost on the SKWAWKBOX nor on Ms Evans. But it’s not the first publication to act similarly – and far from the first to follow the SKWAWKBOX’s lead on breaking news.

The SKWAWKBOX needs your support. This blog is provided free of charge but depends on the generosity of its readers to be viable. If you can afford to, please click here to arrange a one-off or modest monthly donation via PayPal. Thanks for your solidarity so this blog can keep bringing you information the Establishment would prefer you not to know about.



  1. Skwawkbox , your credentials as a viable , believable and trustworthy alternative news source to the MSM is without question( despite what that Tory Troll Hindson says ) .
    IMHO you don’t need to seek approval by referencing back the utter shite that the Daily Hate Mail is , as they are the biggest bunch of lie peddlers in history, in fact it almost taints this blog to be mentioning that contemptible pile of turds .

  2. Given that Skwawkbox is an independent, the likelihood is, is that if this story gets bigger, the mainstream are likelier to laud the faily heil for bringing it to the (general) public’s attention.

    You only need to read ‘Secret of shame’ in ‘Private Eye’ to see that’s how it generally works….And more often than not it’s either the heil or the scum dominating the entire section.

    Risible oakeshott – now at the heil – has tried the tactic of pressing for more information before while at the times. It led to her grassing up her sources leading to them receiving jail sentences. It wouldn’t surprise me to discover she’s the heil journalist in this instance, and it wouldn’t surprise me if she goes too far and ends up bollocksing the entire case, if it IS her on this story.

    Nevertheless, the CPS need to pull their fingers out on this case. Hindson can bleat all he likes, but this is only adding more ammunition to the doubter’s (Or ‘conspiracy theorists’ – as he labels them) cause.

    1. Bollocksing the entire case might even have been the point of the exercise.

      Skwawkbox, do you happen know the name of the Mail ‘journalist’ who contacted Sharon Evans?

      If so, publishing it shouldn’t endanger the case itself, might put them/others off making similar attempts in the future, and could help to determine motive (beyond them merely being scum, which is a given).

      1. So would I – among many other derogatory terms, but risible is as near to ‘isabel’ as I could think of.

        Risible oakeshott – putting the ‘tory’ in derogatory…

  3. Risible oakeshott – now at the heil – has tried the tactic of pressing for more information* before while at the times.

    *In an ongoing investigation.

  4. There is another “theory of the crime”.

    And that is that the Mail suspects that the Chief Constable story is another of the D-notice / disabled benefits / Mr Corbyn tax return type of Skwawkbox stories, and they are trying to expose it as such.

    Time will tell where the truth lies, but if no Chief Constable is charged, then the conspiracy theorists (doubters if you will) will indeed have a field day, despite the “Nick” debacle.

    It’s worth noting that the police will inevitably interview someone who is accused of a crime; an interview is no indication of whether a crime has even been committed, never mind who has committed it.

    1. Yadda, yadda, yadda…

      Button it, hindson. Your precious establishment’s under ever-closer, justifiable scrutiny and people are growing increasingly sceptical of their modus operandi – They’re being given bloody good reason to, day after day, after day.

      The ‘proles’ are already fed up of the overtly obvious bullshit they’re putting out. There’s only so many capers left for them to pull before they’ve used them all up; and people can already predict with a reasonable amount of certainty what those contrivances will be.

      1. Have you forgotten “Nick”, and Skwawkbox’s previous unfounded stories already?

  5. Have you forgotten the slime known as edwina currie virtually handing the keys to broadmoor to jimmy savile, or her (As well as the rest of your beloved toerags) knowing about thatcher’s PPS peter morrison being a ‘noted pederast’ but never saying or doing anything about it, until it was time to write her ‘memoirs’?

    And that’s just the miniscule tip of a colossal iceberg. One that you seem quite eager to defend, by the way…

    1. I’m not defending anything and you’re quite entitled to your opinion of Mrs Currie.

      The Saville case, and others, were, and are, absolutely appalling.

      But these historic cases aren’t the subject of the article; and it’s this article I’m commenting on in the following respects.

      1. Allegations usually lead to interviews but do not necessarily lead to charges – whatever the crime (if indeed there was a crime in the first place – hence the reference to “Nick”.)

      2. Skwawkbox has in the past put out stories which later have to be retracted or amended because the facts don’t stack up. This may or may not be another.

      If you dispute either of 1 or 2 I’ll gladly debate them with you.

      1. To paraphrase you…


        I’m curious as to why a report to the DWP of suspected benefit fraud must be “malignant and malicious”

        Can’t such a report ever be in good faith?

        I’m curious as to why you think you simply must cast doubt on any report of nonsenses in the establishment??

        Can’t any complaint be made in good faith?

  6. @TheToffee

    Of course complaints can be made in good faith – it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re valid.

    But again I think you’re putting words into my keyboard.

    As regards this article I’ve put up an alternative theory as to why the Daily Mail has taken an interest in the Chief Constable story.
    Skwawkbox say it shows that the story must have “legs”, but I’m saying that the Mail might be checking the story out to see if it’s another “D-notice” special.

    On the previous, original, Chief Constable story I questioned the conclusion Skwawkbox drew that this ongoing criminal investigation cast any light on the entirely separate Inquiry. I cast no doubt on any report of “nonsenses”, I merely suggested that the conspiracy theorists will have a field day if no charges ensue.

    1. Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 5:44 pm
      “Of course complaints can be made in good faith – it doesn’t necessarily mean they’re valid.”

      Does it mean they must be investigated thoroughly and without interference?

      Or are only those investigated by the DWP done so ‘in good faith’?

      Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 5:44 pm
      “As regards this article I’ve put up an alternative theory as to why the Daily Mail has taken an interest in the Chief Constable story.”

      Theory? THEORY? Hypocritical, much? A-GAIN.

      Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 5:44 pm
      I merely suggested that the conspiracy theorists will have a field day if no charges ensue.

      As long as ‘due process’ has been adhered to, eh?

      A farmer’d keep you just for the amount of sh*t alone.

      1. “Does it mean they must be investigated thoroughly and without interference?” – Yes

        “Theory? THEORY? Hypocritical, much? A-GAIN.” A theory clearly flagged as such. Skwawkbox has his own theory.

        “As long as ‘due process’ has been adhered to, eh?” Absolutely – and as discussed on the other thread if you have any alternatives to the current due process I’d be delighted to hear them.

      2. Graham, you keep leaping to the assumption that what is published is all there is. Some things can’t, or can’t yet, go into the public domain. Try to pause and consider a little before you make those assumptions

  7. Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 12:15 pm · ·
    Have you forgotten “Nick”, and Skwawkbox’s previous unfounded stories already?

    Graham Hindson 17/08/2017 at 4:38 pm

    But these historic cases aren’t the subject of the article;

    So why mention them?

    1. Skwawkbox’s previous unfounded stories form part of my alternative “theory of the crime” as outlined above.

      “Nick” formed part of my point about the conspiracy theorists, who will, I’m sure, be convinced that there is no smoke without fire if no charges ensue, despite that case showing that sometimes there is smoke without fire.

      1. Twisting & turning more times than a snake with a hernia. 🙂

        The rank hypocrisy & cowardice from you is beyond risible.

  8. @The Toffee

    I don’t think there’s anything substantive to reply to there.

    1. @Hindson , However it is YOUR choice to comment , you CHOOSE to come on here and comment the way you do and now have been caught out.
      This is the same way in which you try to catch others out , lead them down into traps you think you so cleverly set out , and now you complain , you don’t like it , not nice is it , you have been hoisted by your own petard , all to pursue your goals of undermining and casting doubt on everything this blog writes .This you masquerade as debate ,,, laughable , it is dishonest, mendacious deceitful and frankly insulting to those of us on the left who do genuinely give their time in engaging with you.

      The Skwawkbox owes you nothing , you are in no way ANY authority here on this site and you hold no one here to account.
      You are a self confessed lifelong Tory voter who is happy to see a Govt carry out policies that result in the deaths of it’s own citizens , that is your responsibility , on your conscience ( you obviously from previous comments have NONE ) and those like you , yes before you it , say all 13 million of them who voted Tory .It is time they faced the consequences of their actions .In fact it wouldn’t surprise me one bit if you actually worked for Tory HQ and are paid by them.

      You disgust me and deserve all the opprobrium you get.

      N.B the editor of Skwawkbox who has BTW taken time to directly address you , and your response is one of foot stamping childish impudence .
      I will continue wherever I find your comments here to call you out for what you are and to warm others you TORY TROLL

    2. Of course. But sometimes then it would be wiser not to comment. This blog has a track record of breaking news that the mainstream didn’t know or didn’t want to touch – and then they follow our lead. We’re not perfect, but none of the msm is either.

      So a lot of readers know to trust that even if the full information can’t be published, to protect a source or for other reasons, it’s there.

      If you’re not sure, you can always ask whether there’s more that can’t be published that supports the published conclusion. If an answer can be given, it will be.

      1. Because I can never be sure.what is unsaid, are you seriously suggesting that I should contact you to ask whether there’s more that can’t be published that supports the published conclusion before making any comment on here?

        If so would you undertake to reply to such questions?

  9. And there we have it folks , for all to see @Hindson response to the Editor ,
    The Editor has made a very magnanimous offer to him and he throws it back with barely disguised cynical disbelief not only that but he seams to think he has the entitlement to start dictating the terms of how the Editor will communicate .. Nope always the same with Tory Trolling bastards give them an inch and they will take the mile or more , certainly couldn’t see the same level of offer or courtesy being extended by his beloved establishment MSM , can’t see Rupert or Paul Dacre giving him the same offer.

    1. You’ll note that I have actually posed two questions to Skwawkbox.

      1. Does he expect me to ask, before making any comment here, whether there is unpublished material that supports his conclusions.?
      2. Will he respond to such questions if asked?

      I certainly don’t have any entitlement to ” …start dictating the terms of how the Editor will communicate ” – that’s entirely up to him. He can choose whether or not to answer the questions and provide whatever answers (if any) he chooses.

      (I don’t think the printed press even suggest to their readers that they might check what might be unprinted before they comment on what has been printed)

  10. @Hindson my last comment wasn’t an invitation for you to engage as its a pointless exercise with you as a life long Tory voting Troll , and you don’t get to tell me to NOTE anything you supercilious twat .
    Its a statement and observation of your tactics and your twisting again is so obvious it’s laughable . Your so called questions are nothing more than a risible attempt to set the agenda and playing field and clearly just by posing them you think you have some right to dictate that . You do not , its your choice to come here to comment , you don’t like what’s said or printed , you don’t like the modus operandi of the Editor and the way he chooses to present information then tough shit go and comment somewhere else .
    This blog is not the printed press which you keep trying to compare it to, it is something far superior to your establishment supporting MSM.
    Any further comment by you will be nothing more than your usual twisting and turning further proving my analogy of you and the snot ridden eel that you are .

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: