Transcript of our conversation with Charles Thomson 1/2/2021

(0:05) Broadcasting live from the Treehouse in Phoenix, Arizona. (0:08) It's Knocked Conscious. (0:09) With Mark Poles and Chris Woodsey-Peralta.

(0:13) From the home offices in Gilbert, Arizona. (0:19) Welcome to Knocked Conscious. (0:20) Chris, how are you doing today, sir? (0:21) Good, Mark.

(0:22) How are you doing, sir? (0:23) I'm doing well. (0:24) Today is a very special tree for us. (0:26) Very much so.

(0:27) We have a gentleman named Charles Thompson. (0:30) And Chris, tell us about Charles. (0:31) What do you remember about Charles that's so awesome? (0:34) I know Charles originally from Square One, the Michael Jackson documentary.

(0:38) And then I investigated him from the UK. (0:41) Then I recently became aware of the Unfinished podcast about the Shoebury UK child pedophilia (0:50) ring, which was an amazing eight or nine part podcast. (0:54) So that's how I know Charles.

(0:55) Yeah, it's eight episodes and a bonus, I think is what it was. (0:58) It was amazing. (1:00) It was really good to hear and listen to the way it was laid out.

(1:04) So Charles, welcome to Not Conscious. (1:07) You're on with Chris and Mark. (1:09) Hi, thanks for having me.

(1:11) Yeah, we're so happy to have you on. (1:13) Tell us a little bit about yourself and how you became a journalist and a little bit of (1:16) your backstory. (1:18) Sure.

(1:18) So I'm in England and I'm 32 now. (1:25) I became a professional journalist. (1:27) I started getting paid when I was about 19.

(1:33) I always wanted to be a journalist and people always ask me why, and I don't know, is the (1:38) truthful answer. (1:39) I just can't remember. (1:41) It's possibly because when I was a kid, I used to love Superman and I used to watch (1:46) those Adventures of Clark Kent and Lois Lane things.

(1:51) I don't know if you remember the TV series with Dean Cain and Terry Hatcher. (1:56) Of course, you can forget Terry Hatcher, Charles. (1:59) It may stem from that.

(2:02) I don't really remember why I wanted to be a journalist. (2:05) And to be honest, once I started studying, it was so different than what I thought it (2:10) would be as well. (2:12) I was extremely shy when I was a kid and even when I was a teenager.

(2:18) And my first ever journalism studies lecture at university, the lecturer gave us all a (2:25) notepad and a pen and said, right, your mission today is you've got to go out into the high (2:31) street and interview people. (2:33) And I just was like, oh my God, this sounds like the worst thing you could possibly have (2:38) said to me because I was so shy. (2:41) I just thought journalism was like writing things.

(2:43) But of course it's not because when you think about it, if you're writing journalism, then (2:47) you don't just sit down at a computer and write something because what are you going (2:51) to write? (2:52) You need to know what's going on. (2:53) So when you think about it, it's really obvious that in terms of what journalism is, it should (3:00) be about going off and talking to people and finding things out. (3:03) But you don't realise that until you start doing it.

(3:08) And so in the beginning, I was quite horrified by the idea of just having to cold call people (3:14) or walk up to people in the street and talk to them. (3:17) But now it's been my job for over a decade. (3:22) And I started out in show business journalism and music journalism.

(3:27) I started freelancing when I was still studying at university. (3:31) And after I finished university, I graduated into the recession after the global financial (3:37) collapse. And it was very difficult to get an entry level job in journalism.

(3:42) And so I just kept freelancing, doing showbiz reporting. (3:46) And I was doing lots of stuff on Michael Jackson. (3:49) I was doing music reporting on like soul music and funk music, selling interviews to (3:56) magazines and doing court reporting and other bits of showbiz reporting.

(4:02) I did Amy Winehouse stories for a while and things like that and just gradually got (4:09) disillusioned with it and eventually ended up moving into the regional press. (4:14) And that's what I've been doing ever since. (4:16) I've been working in regional newspapers in and around London since 2011.

(4:25) That's excellent. Well, welcome. (4:27) We are so happy to have you on here.

(4:29) Would you like to share some of the big musical names that you work with besides Michael (4:33) Jackson? I know you did an expose with another pretty famous soul R&B singer as well. (4:39) I let's try and remember from the beginning. (4:42) So my first was my first of assignment was James Brown.

(4:48) So I started university in 2006, September 2006. (4:54) And in October 2006, because I was a huge James Brown fan, I decided to use my sort (5:03) of quote unquote credentials as a student journalist to try to get to meet him. (5:08) And I managed to sort of finagle my way into his press conference at his London (5:14) concert.

Turned out to be the last concert he ever did in in London. (5:21) And I got to ask him a question. (5:24) I didn't get his autograph.

(5:25) I got very close. (5:26) I was just about to get his autograph and some kids ran up to him and I thought I'll (5:31) let them go first because otherwise I'll look like an asshole. (5:35) And and so they got his autograph and then his security grabbed him and put him in an (5:40) elevator and he was gone.

(5:41) I was like, oh, shit. So that's, you know, gutting. (5:46) But I got to talk to him and I was at that concert, his last ever concert.

(5:50) And it was a really strange experience because James Brown was a very sort of braggadocious (5:56) kind of person and very confident, bullish and often. (6:03) You know, sort of overly confident, you know, used to tell crazy stories about his life (6:08) that were clearly not true to sort of like he used to tell people that he once played a (6:13) concert to a million people, which is clearly not true. (6:17) And anyway, but in this press conference, he was really morbid.

(6:20) I asked him a question, which was what's happened to your new album? (6:25) Because a few years earlier, he'd been recording a new album and then just nothing (6:30) happened. And I asked him this question and the whole tone of the press conference just (6:35) changed. And he got really morbid and then said, somebody is going to have to die before (6:43) that album comes out and I'm not going to say anything else other than that.

(6:48) And and then but then he started talking again and he said, we'd love to get it out, but (6:52) we need help. And as he said, we need help. (6:54) His voice cracked like he was going to start crying.

(6:57) And then his manager interjected and said, oh, I'm sorry, you know, but if there's any (7:03) news about the album, we'll we'll put out press release or something like that. (7:06) But it was a really weird moment from him, totally out of character. (7:13) And I found it a bit weird.

(7:15) And of course, about six weeks later, he was dead. (7:18) And it was so weird because that was the words he said to me was somebody is going to (7:22) have to die before the album comes out. (7:24) And then six weeks later, he's dead.

(7:26) It was just really creepy. (7:29) It seemed weird. It's crazy.

(7:31) And the album never came out anyway. (7:33) I don't know. I think it was unusable because I did end up doing a big story.

(7:40) I'm trying to remember what it was called. (7:41) I think it was just called The Lost Album, James Brown, The Lost Album. (7:45) I did a big story on it where I went off and interviewed.

(7:49) Lots of his band members that worked with him on the album, and they were all just (7:53) talking about, you know. (7:56) Basically, he was in a dispute with his management and he was really eager to (7:59) record this album. (8:01) And then by the time they actually got into the studio to record it, he'd sort of (8:06) gone off the idea and he was cheesed off with his management.

(8:09) And so what they ended up with was. (8:11) Just a lot of old crap, really, you know, like one or two good songs and then a lot (8:15) of like cover versions and weird, weird things. (8:20) I wonder if it was like a contractual issue, because I remember like the whole Billy Joel (8:23) Piano Man thing.

(8:25) The reason he was in that bar playing was because he was had a contractual dispute (8:30) with his current, you know, A&R people or whatever the music company was. (8:36) Well, I subsequently found out through an interview with his wife a few (8:41) years after he died, about five years after he died. (8:43) I interviewed his widow, Tommy Ray, and she was telling me about how around that (8:52) period where I had that press conference with him and he started almost crying.

(8:56) She was saying that he was making strange comments to her, like, you know, I'm like (9:03) he's a slave and he's in servitude and these people own him and they're controlling (9:08) him and he can't do anything that he wants to do. (9:10) And when he died, his wife was not in the house. (9:16) She was away and she returned and the moneymen, the managers had padlocked her out (9:21) of the house.

They put like 10 padlocks on the gate to the house so she couldn't get (9:27) in. And she told me all sorts of stuff about threats that were made to her. (9:32) And, you know, the dispute over his estate is still going on right now.

(9:37) He died in 2006 and his estate has still not been settled. (9:41) Where are we now? (9:42) 2021. (9:43) His estate has not been settled.

(9:45) So his ex-wife is still trying to get that all worked out? (9:51) Yeah. (9:51) So what happened was it turned out some of these businessmen that she named to me, (9:57) well, at least one of them got prosecuted after he died. (9:59) It turned out he had been embezzling money.

(10:01) His name was David Cannon. (10:02) He'd been embezzling money from Mr. Brown's estate and ended up (10:07) taking some sort of plea deal and serving a sentence under house arrest. (10:12) And then there were others that they were unhappy with, but they never got prosecuted.

(10:16) And unfortunately, when Mr. Brown died, he left a will which was out of date. (10:22) I think the will had been signed in about 1998. (10:27) And so it predated the marriage and it predated the birth of their son.

(10:34) So it effectively ended up in a big dispute where certain members of the family were (10:39) trying to stop the new wife and the new child from getting a share of the estate. (10:45) And when they finally settled all the stuff between the family members, then (10:49) the bank or the court had put in place some temporary executors. (10:56) And the executors started saying, well, now we want to cut because we've been (11:00) running the estate for so long, for like five years or whatever it is.

(11:04) We want a cut now. (11:05) And so then they all ended up going to court against the executor. (11:10) It was just a massive.

(11:11) I don't think he's even been buried yet. (11:13) I think it's not even been resolved the issue of where and when he should be buried. (11:17) So he's still in a crypt somewhere.

(11:20) Still now to this day, 13 years later. (11:23) I believe so. (11:24) Yeah.

(11:25) Holy mackerel. (11:26) Yeah. (11:27) I think it's more than 13 years.

(11:29) I think it's 15. (11:31) What year was it? (11:32) 06, right? (11:33) 06. (11:34) Oh, 15 years.

(11:34) Oh, well, 14, 15 years. (11:36) Yeah. (11:36) It was Christmas day, 2006.

(11:38) So we've just passed 14 years, I think. (11:41) Wow. (11:42) Well, I'm sorry that you never had that opportunity to have to get his autograph.

(11:46) That's for your personal autograph. (11:49) Yeah. (11:50) You know, I saw him live quite a few times and he just was like so dynamic.

(11:57) Even in old age, you know, the first time I saw him, I think he was 71. (12:03) And you would have, if someone had told you he was 50, you would have believed it. (12:06) I mean, he was doing the running man.

(12:08) He was like spinning around doing robot moves and gliding all over the stage. (12:13) It was unbelievable. (12:14) He was definitely a showman.

(12:16) The last time I saw him, he was clearly not well. (12:21) Very, very weak, could barely move his legs. (12:24) His voice was very weak.

(12:27) And a few weeks later, as I say, died of congestive heart failure. (12:32) But I believe he was admitted to hospital with pneumonia. (12:37) And when they got him to the hospital, they realized he was in heart failure and he died.

(12:42) Although there was a fantastic piece of journalism that came out a few years ago. (12:46) I'm sure the guy is called Thomas Lake. (12:48) That sounds familiar.

(12:49) It was for CNN. (12:51) A huge three piece, three article series investigating, reinvestigating the death of (13:00) James Brown, which led to prosecutors saying that they were going to investigate whether (13:05) he may have actually been murdered. (13:08) If you get a chance, it's a really long read, but it's a fantastic piece of journalism.

(13:15) I like long reads, so I have no problem with that. (13:16) Could you share that title again, please? (13:19) I can't remember what it was called, but I think the guy that wrote it was called Thomas (13:23) Lake and it was for CNN. (13:25) Yeah, we'll have to look that up.

(13:27) Chris is an avid reader. (13:28) I'm an audio book person myself. (13:30) Well, this was a very interesting piece.

(13:33) It was a long read, but what they also did was inserted lots of audio clips, documents (13:40) you could download. (13:42) So it was almost like you could follow the investigation yourself, looking at all the (13:46) different pieces of evidence. (13:47) It was a fantastic thing that they put together.

(13:50) It should have won a Pulitzer or something. (13:52) I don't know if it got nominated for anything. (13:54) That's like a choose your own adventure, almost like very interactive.

(13:57) Exactly. (13:58) I was just going to say that. (13:58) Yeah.

(14:00) That's neat. (14:01) Do you mind if I ask about any coverage that you had with Amy Winehouse? (14:07) Yeah, I didn't do a lot on Amy Winehouse. (14:09) So what happened was I got involved with a tabloid in the UK called The Sun through Michael (14:16) Jackson stuff because I was quite well connected in the Michael Jackson world because before (14:23) I became a professional journalist, I was working sort of on spec.

(14:31) I was doing like music journalism for music fan sites and things to get bylines to build (14:37) up like a portfolio of work. (14:40) And so through that, I had built up some good connections in the Michael Jackson world. (14:46) And so I actually broke the story or I helped to break the story when he announced the (14:53) This Is It concerts in 2009.

(14:55) I got a call from somebody on the inside who said he's on whatever the flight was. (15:02) It's landing at this airstrip at this time, you know, do something with that information. (15:08) So I sold that to The Sun.

(15:12) Basically, I worked with The Sun and they got the exclusive pictures of him disembarking (15:17) the plane. (15:18) We were the only people that knew it was coming. (15:20) And I'd done that on the, you know, at the request of somebody in his camp.

(15:25) They had rung me and basically asked me to leak it. (15:29) And from then on, you know, I was at the announcement of the O2 when he came out and announced the (15:34) concerts. (15:35) And then I became sort of like a go to guy for The Sun on anything Michael Jackson.

(15:41) And after I built up a relationship with The Sun, I started working on other stories. (15:45) So I did some stuff on Amy Winehouse. (15:48) I did some stuff on Ronan Keating.

(15:53) I did various bits and pieces. (15:55) Ronan Keating, you probably have never heard of Ronan Keating, but he was in a big boy (15:58) band here in the UK called Boyzone. (16:02) I've heard of him, but I don't follow him.

(16:05) The only thing I remember doing on Amy Winehouse was about a bust up that she had with her (16:11) dad. (16:13) And even then, it was not a big piece of work. (16:16) It was like an hour's work or something.

(16:20) It was very strange the way The Sun operated. (16:23) You know, I might not hear from them for two months and they would ring me up and say, (16:26) can you do one of like with the Ronan Keating thing? (16:29) It was that. (16:31) So he had been making money, a lot of money from advertising deals, and the advertising (16:41) was all based around him and his family.

(16:45) I can't remember what they were advertising, but it was all to do with, you know, some (16:49) sort of like broadband TV malarkey or something. (16:53) And so it was all about him being this amazing family man and look at me and my family. (17:00) If you want to be like us, you should get this TV.

(17:03) And it turned out that he actually was cheating on his wife and it all was not quite what (17:11) it seemed. (17:12) And they wanted me to try and find the girlfriend, which I did. (17:18) I won't go into too much detail about how that all came about, but that was my job on (17:23) the Ronan Keating story was to find the girlfriend.

(17:26) But you actually were able to do so. (17:27) That's amazing. (17:28) I did.

(17:29) I did find her. (17:30) Yeah, but, you know, it was not really good for you. (17:33) Not so good for him, right? (17:35) Well, you know, it's not the kind of stuff I really wanted to be working on.

(17:41) And I understand that it is in the public interest if somebody is making, you know, (17:45) potentially like millions of pounds out of falsely portraying themselves as a fantastic (17:50) family man when, in fact, they're cheating on their wife, then that is, you know, is (17:55) a matter of public interest. (17:56) But at the same time, say again, I would certainly agree with that. (18:02) I mean, it is a matter like I would like to know if I'm being, you know, bamboozled right (18:06) in a weird way.

(18:07) Yeah, it's I think that the point at which it becomes public interest is when you start (18:12) roping the public in. (18:13) So if you're somebody who's in a band and you just go on stage and sing and then you (18:17) come off stage and you have your private life, then there's no public interest if you're (18:22) cheating on your wife. (18:23) You know, it's not in the public interest.

(18:25) But if you are profiting from portraying yourself as a really devoted, fantastic family man, (18:32) then that's different. (18:35) So there was a public interest in it, but nonetheless, it was not something I was particularly (18:40) interested in and not the kind of thing I got into journalism for. (18:45) And what did that expose lead to for you? (18:52) Did that open any other doors or avenues for anything? (18:55) No, I just had an existing relationship with a son.

(18:58) And so they would contact me occasionally and say, can you do X, Y, Z? (19:02) And I would do it to the best of my ability. (19:05) Primarily, I was working on Michael Jackson stuff. (19:07) That was where I really became disillusioned because in late 2009, Evan Chandler, who was (19:19) the father of Michael Jackson's first, well, the father was the accuser.

(19:23) He was the guy that accused Michael Jackson of molesting his son, Jordan. (19:27) The son was Jordan, correct? (19:29) Jordan. (19:29) Yeah.

(19:30) So Evan Chandler committed suicide and the son contacted me and asked me to put together (19:39) a dossier of information on the case that would inform their reporting. (19:45) And I was like, oh, well, this is fantastic because the son and every other tabloid newspaper (19:49) gets this all wrong every single time they write about it. (19:52) So I put together this really comprehensive briefing pack where I went back to the original (20:00) court documents and the original evidence and the interviews and all that kind of stuff (20:05) and put together like a big list of these are all the things that you always get wrong.

(20:11) And this is what the truth is. (20:12) And here's the source. (20:14) So I spent all day doing that and sent it over to them.

(20:18) And then the next day I read what they'd published and they just ignored everything I'd sent (20:21) them and they just published all the same bullshit that they got wrong every other time. (20:26) And I was just like, oh, man, you know, that's so disheartening. (20:30) Did you feel that they were influenced to do so? (20:33) Or I mean, is there a conspiracy behind that or? (20:36) It's really hard to answer.

(20:37) I mean, I certainly there is a degree of agreement between major media outlets in the way that (20:45) they cover Michael Jackson. (20:46) I saw that firsthand in 2006. (20:49) I made an audio documentary about this back in 2016.

(20:55) I was at the World Music Awards in 2006. (21:00) So Michael Jackson had been acquitted in 2005 in his trial and had gone to the Far East (21:08) or the Middle East. (21:09) I forget where he went.

(21:11) He did. (21:11) He went I think he went to Dubai and Oman and then popped up in Japan and then Ireland, (21:21) I think, is the order in which it happened. (21:23) But anyway, so then he it was announced he was going to be appearing at the World Music (21:31) Awards in London because the World Music Awards used to do an award called the Diamond Award, (21:37) and you could only win the Diamond Award if you'd sold 100 million albums.

(21:43) And Michael Jackson had won the Diamond Award many years ago, but he was about to become (21:49) the only person in history to win the Diamond Award twice because he now had a single album, (21:55) which on its own had sold 100 million copies, which was Thriller. (22:00) And you're talking about Jackson five would have been his first iteration or. (22:05) So he had originally won the Diamond Award because of his combined album sales across (22:11) all of his albums.

(22:13) He'd sold 100 million collectively. (22:16) But then years later, Thriller just kept on selling and selling. (22:21) And so, I mean, it just never stopped selling Thriller.

(22:23) So in 2006, Guinness World Records certified that Thriller on its own had now sold 100 (22:30) million. (22:31) And so they gave him the Diamond Award again. (22:33) He was the first person to ever get it for one album.

(22:36) I say that's so interesting. (22:39) I was so I was there. (22:41) I bought a ticket and I went and he there was a rumor that he was supposed to be (22:46) performing.

(22:47) And then it didn't sound true, to be honest, to someone that had been following Michael (22:51) Jackson for years. (22:52) He really did not like performing in his latter years. (22:55) He did everything he could to get out of it.

(22:57) And so he came out and accepted the award. (23:00) And the reaction is I just can't even put into words. (23:05) It was it was like brain mashing.

(23:08) The noise, the crowd noise was so overwhelming. (23:12) He gave an entire acceptance speech for about five minutes. (23:15) You could not hear a word of his speech.

(23:17) All you could hear was screaming. (23:19) And it really was. (23:22) I've never seen I've seen everyone.

(23:24) You know, I've seen Madonna. (23:25) I've seen George Michael. (23:28) I've, you know, you name them.

(23:29) I've seen them. (23:30) Right. (23:30) I've seen Beyonce.

(23:32) And I've never in my life seen anyone provoke that kind of reaction. (23:37) And all he did was walk out on stage and collect an award. (23:39) It was insane.

(23:41) The reaction that he got. (23:43) And then he came right at the end of the show. (23:46) He came out on stage and there was a choir performing.

(23:49) We are the world. (23:50) And he sort of just nobody could hear anything, including him. (23:54) You could see him looking at the sound guys at the side of the stage.

(23:57) He couldn't hear anything. (23:59) He had a microphone, but none of us could hear anything. (24:02) So he couldn't really sing because he couldn't hear anything.

(24:05) So he ended up just sort of wandering around the stage, like reaching down, (24:09) shaking people's hands, you know, high fiving people, whatever. (24:13) And then the music ended and he just stood on the stage for a few minutes. (24:17) And that was it.

(24:18) He was just stood there and people were just going insane. (24:21) People. (24:21) It was like the 80s.

(24:22) They were dragging people up. (24:23) The crowd had fainted. (24:25) It was unbelievable.

(24:28) That sounds like a Tom Jones concert, too, right? (24:32) Well, I didn't see anybody throwing knickers at him. (24:36) Um, so the next day I go into university and one of my friends says to me, (24:41) oh, you know, how was last night? (24:43) They looked really sort of like morose and sort of like they felt sorry for me. (24:47) They were like, how was last night? (24:50) And I'm telling this whole story, like, oh, my God, you know, you wouldn't believe it.

(24:54) The reaction was insane. (24:56) You know what? (24:57) You couldn't hear anything. (24:58) And they were looking at me like I was in demented, right? (25:02) I was thinking, well, this is weird.

(25:04) Why is everybody looking at me weird? (25:06) So at lunchtime, I go into a newsagent and I see all of the newspapers. (25:10) And all of the newspapers are reporting that last night, Michael Jackson was booed off (25:16) the stage at the World Music Awards. (25:19) And are you serious? (25:20) I could not believe it.

(25:24) They literally were reporting not just that he got booed, but that he was booed off the (25:30) stage. (25:30) One of the newspapers wrote, I remember the phrase exactly, scuttled off stage to a chorus (25:36) of booze. (25:37) And I was just like, what the fuck? (25:40) Because I was right there.

(25:43) I just I didn't hear a single person booing, not even one. (25:47) I mean, the whole crowd were going insane. (25:49) Not only did he not get booed off the stage, he stood on the stage for several minutes (25:54) with no music playing or anything, just sort of soaking up the applause.

(25:58) I could not believe it. (25:59) I learned that day, and I hate using the word conspiracy because it does make me sound (26:06) mad, but all a conspiracy is, is an agreement between parties. (26:11) There clearly was an agreement among parties there because nobody who was present at that (26:17) event could have come away under the impression that he was booed off stage because it's (26:22) the literal opposite of what happened.

(26:25) He finished his quasi performance and then just stood there soaking up the adulation of (26:31) the crowd for several minutes. (26:33) So to suggest that he was booed off stage for one person to report it would have been (26:38) ridiculous for them all to be reporting it. (26:41) But every single newspaper to be reporting that he was booed off stage was terrifying.

(26:48) You know, I was a journalism student. (26:49) I'd just gone into university the next day, back to my journalism studies, and then I (26:53) go down to the newsagent and I'm confronted with every newspaper just publishing the (26:59) same propaganda. (27:01) It was completely fabricated.

(27:04) And so I learned that day that there is something funny about the way the UK media certainly (27:12) reports on Michael Jackson. (27:14) There is a degree of agreement between parties to always take the most negative line, to (27:21) work in tandem to publish fictitious stories. (27:26) And, you know, I've since heard, I've been, you know, on and off working on Michael Jackson (27:30) stuff for my whole career.

(27:32) And even just last year, by complete fluke, I met a lady who worked in a radio station (27:38) as a receptionist. (27:41) And when I was on the air, I was talking about Michael Jackson. (27:44) Then as I was leaving, the receptionist at the radio station stopped me and said, I was (27:49) just listening to you on the air talking about Michael Jackson.

(27:52) I just had to share something with you. (27:54) And she told me how she had used to work at a Rupert Murdoch owned newspaper in the (28:00) UK, which doesn't exist anymore, called the Today. (28:04) And she had been the archivist at the Today newspaper.

(28:08) So her job every day was to take the clippings from the previous day's paper and put them (28:13) in the archives so that if any reporter needed them in future, they were accessible. (28:17) And she was telling me how the reporters at the Today newspaper were under explicit (28:24) instructions from the top to attack Michael Jackson at every available opportunity and (28:31) that they had been instructed that if there was no negative story about Michael Jackson, (28:35) they had to make one up. (28:37) And is that like a memo or was that just a spoken? (28:41) Well, she was told it by one of the reporters because she was in the middle of trying to (28:45) file the clippings on a Michael Jackson story one day, and she realized that the story didn't (28:50) make any sense.

(28:52) And she thought that maybe there was more to the story, which had accidentally not gone (28:57) into the newspaper. (28:59) And so she went off to find the journalist who'd written the story and say, where's the (29:03) rest of the story? (29:04) Because what you filed, what's appeared in print is like nonsensical garbage. (29:09) I can't even file this.

(29:10) It doesn't make any sense. (29:12) And when she finally found the journalist who'd written the story, he said, no, there (29:16) is no rest of it. (29:17) It's the reason it doesn't make any sense is because it's made up.

(29:20) We were instructed. (29:22) We've all been told you must attack Michael Jackson. (29:25) If there's nothing, then you just make something up.

(29:27) So that's what we did. (29:29) What year did she reference? (29:31) This was 88. (29:33) She was very clear about the year because she remembered what the story was about.

(29:36) It was a story about Michael Jackson being in London on the bad tour. (29:41) And they were claiming that thousands of fans had been crushed because he had failed to (29:49) provide adequate security and safety measures. (29:53) And the story was totally fabricated, like Michael Jackson almost killed his fans.

(29:58) And and almost like intentionally or callously did so, right? (30:01) Yeah. (30:02) Like, oh, you know, he's making all this money from this concert, and he can't even (30:05) be bothered to keep his fans safe sort of attitude. (30:09) And so she went off to find the journalist who'd written the story and he told her it (30:15) was fabricated, just said outright is nonsense.

(30:18) It doesn't make sense. (30:19) It's a fabricated story. (30:20) None of us are happy with it, but we're all acting on orders.

(30:25) And she said that troubled her forever. (30:28) You know, every time she saw something about Michael Jackson in the papers for the rest (30:31) of her life, she always was thinking back to that moment and going, is this true or is (30:36) this made up? (30:37) Because I know that where I was working, they were just making it all up. (30:43) Yeah, and she just felt moved to stop me on my way out of the radio station and and tell (30:48) me that story.

(30:49) That's amazing. (30:51) Do you see that kind of bias or I hate to say agenda driven? (30:56) I don't know the correct terminology, but do you see that kind of collaboration or not (31:00) considers conspiracy? (31:02) But, you know, everyone's on the same page about this, about any other subject besides (31:06) outside of Michael Jackson, for example. (31:11) No, I've never and I've never come across any, you know, anybody that admits involvement (31:19) either.

(31:20) You know, it's it's a really weird phenomenon, but it is it does seem to be like a Michael (31:27) Jackson phenomenon. (31:28) I don't know why. (31:29) I don't know where it came from.

(31:30) I don't know why Murdoch or whoever it was at the Murdoch papers that was high enough (31:35) to issue those sort of orders. (31:37) I don't know why. (31:39) I don't know what the motivation was, but it's what was interesting for me is I was (31:43) thinking 95 the second you talked about covering up stuff because of the Weinstein, the whole (31:48) A.J. (31:49) Benz, a Weinstein piece.

(31:51) Right. (31:51) It was like 95 ever since, but that was 88. (31:54) So that was seven years prior to that.

(31:57) A.J. (31:58) Benzer is the guy that admitted that Harvey Weinstein had him plant Michael Jackson stories, (32:03) isn't he? (32:04) Yeah, that's correct. (32:05) To take the heat off of Weinstein. (32:08) Yeah, I'm not sure on the time frame on that.

(32:10) I know that he said that that happened, but to be honest, the media just seem to have (32:15) it in for Michael Jackson from even the early 80s. (32:18) You know, even in the early 80s, they were saying he's a freak. (32:22) He's transsexual.

(32:23) You know, he's he's gay. (32:26) He's he's been castrated to keep his voice high. (32:29) He's must be swallowing female hormones, you know, blah, blah, blah.

(32:34) I mean, a lot of a lot of it in the early days, certainly, in my opinion, was racist. (32:40) It was racially motivated because you can see it in the double standards, you know, (32:44) and like David Bowie can dye his hair like clown red and then paint blue circles all (32:52) over his face and, you know, wear a boob tube. (32:56) And he's a genius.

(32:57) But he's definitely a fluid character for sure. (33:01) Yeah, like, yeah, but like Michael Jackson wears some eyeliner and all of a sudden he's (33:06) transsexual. (33:07) You know, it was the double standards were insane when you even probably make that same (33:14) argument with Freddie Mercury up to the mid 80s.

(33:16) Right. (33:16) Like Freddie Mercury was flamboyant, whatnot. (33:19) And, you know, he was not revered as what he was in a way.

(33:22) Yeah, they they just seem to have it in for Michael Jackson. (33:26) And he was American. (33:27) I mean, could that have been the UK's bias on it? (33:32) Uh, well, I don't know.

(33:34) I just don't know. (33:35) It came from somewhere and is hard without getting people to go on the record to say (33:41) what the motive was. (33:44) But certainly I feel comfortable saying that it happened.

(33:47) And I've spoken to enough people who were on the inside who saw it happening. (33:54) If you look. (33:57) If you look back, you can see, you know, you just look at the coverage and you can see (34:03) what they were doing.

(34:04) I mean, there's so many of overt sort of racist tropes that I do think I am. (34:11) I'm pretty convinced some of it was was racial. (34:14) I mean, they frequently associated him with sort of bestial behavior.

(34:18) They frequently portrayed him as an as like an animal, like an ape or, you know, there (34:24) were lots of anti black tropes that were included in the reportage back then. (34:30) And even even down to, you know, even when they weren't trashing him, they wouldn't put (34:35) him on the cover. (34:36) You know, Rolling Stone wouldn't put him on the cover.

(34:38) MTV wouldn't put him on TV because he was black. (34:41) That was just the era they were dealing with. (34:43) But it seemed to sort of hang over and they got away with stuff and did stuff with Michael (34:49) Jackson that they wouldn't get away with anywhere else, you know, calling him wacko (34:54) Jacko.

(34:55) Right. (34:55) That's a mental health slur. (34:59) And a few years ago, there was well, probably more than 10 years ago now, there was a boxer, (35:05) a huge boxer in the UK called Frank Bruno who had a mental breakdown.

(35:10) You know, well, yeah, he's a heavyweight, wasn't he? (35:12) Yeah, yeah. (35:13) He may have been the world champion. (35:15) I forget.

(35:16) Well, I think he may have. (35:17) Yes, he had a breakdown. (35:19) He had mental health problems.

(35:20) And the Sun put on their front cover a headline. (35:26) I'm paraphrasing, but it was it was something like Bonkers Bruno hauled off to the Nuthouse, (35:33) something like that. (35:35) And I mean, the outcry was enormous, absolutely enormous.

(35:41) And they actually had to recall the newspaper and put a new front page on it because the (35:47) fury from like mental health campaigners and so on. (35:51) Well, in today's climate, I certainly see the backlash. (35:54) Chris and I are in our mid between 45 and 50.

(35:58) So we're in our mid to late 40s. (36:00) And in that time, those those phrases were not at they were not seen as dangerous as (36:08) we're seeing them as now, if that makes sense. (36:12) I do.

(36:12) I totally agree with you. (36:14) But they still call Michael Jackson wacko Jacko. (36:18) Right.

(36:20) Not defending for sure. (36:22) Yeah, yeah. (36:22) So it's they get away with things with Michael Jackson that they can't get away with with (36:27) anyone else.

(36:27) It's just a straight. (36:29) He's almost like a unique case. (36:31) And I don't know what it stems from.

(36:34) I don't know what whose decision it is or how it all gets organized. (36:38) But I witnessed it firsthand that day at the awards ceremony. (36:42) He was not booed off stage.

(36:44) You can go on YouTube right now. (36:46) There's videos from all over the arena that night. (36:50) People that were in the gods, people that were on the floor, people on the left side of the (36:54) arena, people on the right, people in front of the stage, people up in the balconies.

(36:58) There is no video anywhere where you can hear a single person booing doesn't exist. (37:04) And it's not only the concert, it's not only the acting together and all telling the same (37:10) fake story. (37:12) It's telling a fake story which can be disproved in five seconds.

(37:17) But they have the confidence that nobody is going to do that. (37:21) Nobody is going to challenge their narrative on Michael Jackson because they know that (37:26) everybody's in on it. (37:28) I mean, that award ceremony was broadcasted on TV like a week later.

(37:32) He was not booed off stage. (37:34) You could see it on TV. (37:35) He wasn't booed off stage.

(37:36) Not one newspaper said what the fuck was the deal last week when everybody was saying (37:41) he was booed off stage. (37:43) It's like an agreement. (37:44) And it's so strange.

(37:46) And I don't know how it gets organized or whatever, but I've seen it. (37:51) And I see it to this day. (37:52) I see it in the way that Leaving Neverland is covered and Square One is not covered and (37:59) so on.

(38:00) It's like an overwhelming agreement between media organizations across nations. (38:10) And I don't know how it began and I don't know how it sort of sustains itself, but it (38:18) is still happening right now. (38:23) Since you brought up Square One, which we've interviewed Danny Wu and Ataj and Jess Garcia, (38:30) how did you get asked to help with that? (38:35) So I literally got an email from a guy I'd never heard of called Danny Wu who said, (38:42) can I do a telephone interview with you for a documentary I'm making? (38:48) And I assumed, wrongly, I assumed it was a podcast because he wanted to do a telephone (38:54) interview.

(38:57) And agreed, you know, just said, yeah, because I think I said to him, who else have you spoken (39:01) to? (39:01) That's the first question I always ask when somebody contacts me and says I'm doing a (39:04) Michael Jackson thing. (39:05) I got approached last year by Amazon, but not by Amazon, but by someone that was making (39:11) a documentary for Amazon. (39:14) And I said, who else have you spoken to? (39:16) And they said, Mark Lester and Matt Fidesz.

(39:18) And I was like, well, I'm not talking to you then. (39:21) Whereas when I spoke to Danny Wu and he told me the people he'd spoken to already, I thought (39:25) this guy sounds like he's doing a decent job. (39:28) So we did two phone interviews, which were both about 40 minutes or an hour long and then (39:35) forgot about it.

(39:36) And then the next thing I heard was he had sort of edited my interview into a form of (39:43) narration for the documentary. (39:48) And and he was inviting me to a premiere at the Chinese theater in Hollywood. (39:55) And, you know, do you want to come to the premiere of the film? (39:57) I was like, what film? (39:59) You know, I still was under the impression it was a podcast.

(40:04) And so ended up flying out to Hollywood and attending the the premiere of the Chinese (40:11) theater, which was pretty nuts. (40:14) So what did you think of Square One as a whole? (40:18) I thought it was very good. (40:21) I mean, you know, there's so much about that case, which you could if you wanted to make (40:28) like a four part miniseries out of it.

(40:32) But I think Danny did a very good job of synthesizing the the information and telling it in a way (40:39) that was. You know, when you get bogged down in a case, when you get when it's almost like (40:47) if you know a case too well, there are so many little avenues you can go down and it (40:53) takes a real talent to take that information and boil it down in a way that makes sense (40:59) to somebody that doesn't know the case as well as you do. (41:02) And I'm guilty of that when I talk about the trial, the 2005 trial, because I'll start (41:07) talking about one thing and then I'll go, oh, and that reminds me about this other (41:10) witness.

Wait till you hear about this. (41:11) And you just go off on all these tangents and never come back to where you started. (41:15) I think Danny did a really good job of making it understandable to somebody that knows (41:19) nothing about the case.

(41:21) And you can see that in the audience responses and and in the the success that it had. (41:28) It became the number one Amazon documentary in the UK. (41:31) It became the number one Amazon documentary in the US, and it became the number one Amazon (41:36) documentary in Canada at various times.

(41:40) And you don't become number one if people aren't recommending it to each other. (41:44) So I think he must have I thought he did when I was at the premiere, but I think people (41:50) must agree that he's done a good job of of explaining the case in a way that's understandable (41:55) to people that are coming at it, not knowing much about it. (41:59) And and that's a real skill.

(42:03) We agree completely. (42:04) And coming from my perspective, I wasn't a big Michael Jackson fan. (42:11) But so I try to be objective about it.

(42:13) And I did watch Leaving Neverland and I did watch Square One and try to look at everything (42:17) from every perspective. (42:20) And it taught me a really good point when we talked to him for almost three hours that (42:26) the the it was almost like they were leaving. (42:31) Neverland was attacking his family and they didn't care about the consequences of what (42:36) it does to Taj as a person and to the all the remaining family members of Michael Jackson.

(42:43) Yeah, I mean, Leaving Neverland is four hours long. (42:47) And to make a documentary. (42:51) That is four hours long and still only tell one side of the story takes a lot of effort.

(42:59) And so it was a concerted it was a decision. (43:02) And I think the funny thing about Dan Reed is that he changes his mind a lot. (43:06) So if you listen to some of his interviews, he says, well, you know, we we I decided early (43:12) on that I believe these guys and I just wanted to tell their story.

(43:16) And that was the story that I wanted to tell and blah, blah, blah. (43:19) And then other times he's insisting that he fact checked rigorously and that it's objective (43:24) journalism and blah, blah, blah. (43:26) I mean, he can't decide whether he was objective or not.

(43:28) He changes his mind almost every time he gives an interview. (43:31) He was not objective. (43:33) He was not balanced.

(43:34) He was not fair. (43:35) He was not impartial. (43:36) And he was not professional.

(43:39) And the documentary is riddled with information which is either untrue or is contested. (43:45) And where it's contested, that is not demonstrated to the public that's watching. (43:51) There are misleading statements in the documentary, such as they are allowed to make comments (43:56) to the effect of it's not about the money.

(43:59) We're not doing this for money. (44:01) We're doing this to be a voice for victims. (44:03) That's not true.

(44:04) They filed their lawsuits under seal. (44:06) You don't file your lawsuit under seal if you're trying to be a public voice for victims, (44:11) because when you file under seal, you're doing it in secret. (44:15) So what they actually did was filed lawsuits under seal trying to elicit under the table (44:20) payments from Michael Jackson's estate.

(44:22) And only when the estate said we're not paying you did they go public. (44:26) And now they say it's not about the money. (44:28) We just want to be a voice for victims.

(44:30) You don't want to be a voice for victims if you're trying to get secret payments without (44:33) the public finding out. (44:34) There are all sorts of statements included in that documentary which are not true and (44:39) are not contested. (44:40) And if he was interested in being impartial and factual, he would have contested.

(44:46) He would have shown both sides. (44:48) And in my opinion, it's a shoddy piece of work, but it's shoddy in the right way for (44:57) the establishment because the establishment hates Michael Jackson and they would rather (45:01) you do a shoddy job that makes Michael Jackson look bad than do a good job that's even handed. (45:07) And so he's played to the gallery.

(45:10) He's been rewarded for playing to the gallery, but it is a shoddy piece of work and it was (45:16) clearly designed to be one sided and to be an attack. (45:20) And he was as nasty as he could possibly be about the Jackson family. (45:24) He accused them of being greedy.

(45:25) He accused them of only defending Michael Jackson because they wanted money from his (45:30) estate, even though the overwhelming majority of Michael Jackson's relatives get nothing (45:34) from his estate. (45:35) So again, more lies, more deception, more dishonesty or poor research constantly conflates (45:42) the family with the estate. (45:43) He was so nasty about the family and Taj in particular, you know, and then quite unbelievably (45:51) posted a picture.

(45:52) I mean, he is almost like you couldn't make it up. (45:55) He posted a picture of Taj's brother and said it was Taj. (45:59) So it's like, you know, and then he's insisting he's a fantastic fact checker and he does (46:05) his research properly and he can't even tell the difference between Taj and his brother.

(46:10) I mean, you couldn't make it up. (46:11) One of the three T brothers. (46:14) Yeah, yeah.

(46:15) He posted a picture of TJ and Taj, you know, pathetic. (46:22) That's crazy. (46:24) So obviously we we've we're we were exposed to the Michael Jackson thing through Jess (46:30) Garcia.

(46:31) And then we had the privilege of speaking with Taj, like you said, as well as Danny (46:35) and yourself. (46:37) But there's so much interesting about yourself as a journalist because you cover more than (46:41) that. (46:42) And I'd love to transition into the unfinished podcast.

(46:47) I believe it's unfinished. (46:48) The Lost Boys of Shoeberry. (46:50) Is that correct? (46:51) Almost.

(46:51) It's unfinished. (46:52) Shoeberry's Lost Boys. (46:53) Shoeberry's Lost Boys.

(46:54) My apologies. (46:56) Yeah. (46:57) Tell us a little bit about how that started.

(46:59) And I'd love to hear just a general kind of a synopsis of it. (47:04) We'll definitely post the link on our on our show notes because it was it was definitely (47:09) worth a listen. (47:09) I mean, the things that you uncovered was just amazing.

(47:14) Well, so in 2011, I joined a newspaper group called the Yellow Advertiser, which was run (47:21) by Tindall Newspapers. (47:22) So that was my first PAYE journalism gig where I was not freelance anymore. (47:28) And it was a newspaper series that covered London and Essex.

(47:34) And in Essex is a seaside town called Southend-on-Sea. (47:41) And one day I was sitting in the office. (47:43) Well, it goes back before that.

(47:45) So in late 2014 amidst in the UK, we had a sort of a mini Me Too movement, which preceded (47:52) the Harvey Weinstein Me Too movement. (47:54) And it happened because there was a DJ, a BBC DJ called Jimmy Savile, who died. (48:02) And after he died, hundreds, literally hundreds of people made allegations that he had abused (48:10) them as children or as young women.

(48:14) And the outcry over the fact that Jimmy Savile had got away with it for so long, because (48:19) it turned out that multiple people at various times over decades had reported Jimmy Savile (48:25) to different police forces. (48:27) And in each case, the police felt that there was insufficient evidence to bring a prosecution. (48:32) But there was a critical failure by the police because none of these police forces knew (48:37) that the other forces had had similar complaints.

(48:41) So if the police had been acting across the UK in a joined up way, then maybe they could (48:46) have brought their cases together and said it was evidence of a pattern and had him (48:52) prosecuted. (48:53) What year was that again? (48:54) Well, I mean, he was reported over over decades. (48:57) I can't remember when the first one was was made, but he definitely was reported in the (49:02) 90s and then again in the noughties.

(49:05) But I think he may have been reported earlier than that. (49:08) Right. (49:09) And I'm just curious with, you know, we had 9-11 here in the United States and our sharing (49:13) of information between, you know, I guess, justice departments, agencies.

(49:20) Thank you. (49:21) Between agencies has increased, obviously, because of that. (49:24) Right.

(49:24) Because you have the same pieces of information and you're not sharing it with each other. (49:29) Yeah, I and I don't because I thought that there was a police national computer before (49:34) this all happened, but somehow the police forces did not consult one another or did (49:40) not consult the right records. (49:42) And in each case, no further action was taken.

(49:48) And when this became apparent, there was outcry and it prompted a sort of a MeToo movement (49:55) in the UK. (49:56) But the MeToo movement in the UK that came out of Savile revolved primarily around people (50:02) making child abuse allegations as opposed to women making sexual harassment and rape (50:08) and sexual assault allegations. (50:11) And so for a couple of years, historic cases were enormous news.

(50:16) The Jimmy Savile thing, it provoked like a tidal wave of complaints. (50:21) All sorts of other celebrities got accused. (50:23) A number of them went on trial.

(50:25) Some of them, the cases fell apart and were quite ridiculous. (50:28) In other cases, they got convicted. (50:32) And amidst all of this, I was going one day on a slow news day, I decided to go through (50:39) the accounts information that's just been published for my local, what would be like (50:44) the equivalent of City Hall, Essex County Council.

(50:49) Somebody had demanded some of their accounts information under Freedom of Information. (50:54) And I thought, oh, well, I've got nothing else to do. (50:57) I'll go through it.

(50:58) And I was looking through a spreadsheet of every compensation payment which the council (51:04) had authorized in the last year long period. (51:08) And I was scrolling down. (51:10) It was all pretty boring.

(51:12) And then I just found one that said 70,000 pounds alleged abuse. (51:18) And I thought, wow, okay, that's a story. (51:23) That's, you know.

(51:24) That was late 2014, right? (51:26) Late 2014. (51:28) And I kept scrolling and then there was another one. (51:31) And then there was another one.

(51:33) And in total, I think there were 10 or 11 abuse payments. (51:38) By this one council. (51:40) Or were they varying sizes? (51:43) All different sizes.

(51:45) The 70 grand was the biggest one. (51:48) And some of them turned out to be the same cases. (51:52) So it was like multiple installments in different cases.

(51:57) But they were listed as separate payments in this document I was looking at. (52:01) And so I just asked some questions. (52:03) I just went to the press office and said, I've got a list of questions here about these (52:09) payments that I need answered.

(52:11) You know, number one, what was the gender of the complainant in each case? (52:15) Number two, why is it a council issue? (52:19) Were they in a foster home? (52:20) Were they in a children's home? (52:22) Was it abuse that occurred in a school? (52:25) What's the deal? (52:26) Why is the council responsible here? (52:28) Number three, how old were they at the time? (52:31) Et cetera, et cetera. (52:31) One of the questions I asked, which was very important, was in each one of these cases, (52:35) did the council report the alleged crime to the police? (52:39) Because you know that the answer to that question is always going to be no. (52:42) Because they're always trying to cover up abuse complaints.

(52:45) Because as soon as it goes to the police, there's a chance it'll end up in a criminal (52:48) court. (52:49) And if it ends up in a criminal court, there's a high probability that they will end up getting (52:53) reported on, which just equals catastrophic PR for the organization. (52:58) So they almost never report these cases to the police.

(53:02) And when you find out that they haven't done that, that's really bad practice on their part. (53:07) Anyway, so- (53:08) And you generally know that answer before you even ask that question. (53:11) I mean, it's like once in a blue moon that they actually- (53:15) You're giving them rope to hang themselves, basically.

(53:18) Yeah. (53:18) So the press office comes back and says, we're not answering your questions. (53:23) We've submitted them on your behalf as a freedom of information request.

(53:27) And then the answer came back on Christmas Eve, 2014. (53:32) I was sat at my desk. (53:33) We always came in on Christmas Eve for a half day and generally did no work.

(53:39) You know, people would like bring- (53:40) Everybody would bring in a different type of food. (53:43) You know, someone would bring in like sandwiches. (53:45) Someone would do sausage rolls, cake, whatever.

(53:47) And we would have like a little party in the office. (53:49) And people that played instruments would bring them in and have a jam session. (53:52) It was just a fun day, Christmas Eve.

(53:54) But I was in early, so I switched my computer on just to see if anything had happened overnight. (53:59) And I had an email from Essex Council Freedom of Information. (54:03) And it said, we're not answering a single one of your questions (54:06) because to answer any of your questions could identify the victims.

(54:11) Which was, considering one of my questions was yes or no, (54:15) in each case, did you report it to the police? (54:18) On what planet could you argue that that identifies the victim (54:22) to answer yes or no to that question? (54:24) It's a ludicrous assertion. (54:26) So I rang the press office and just said, look, this is outrageous. (54:31) And I'm going to have to make a complaint if this isn't fixed.

(54:37) Because this is unsustainable. (54:38) It's indefensible. (54:41) And I sat and had a conversation with the news editor after hanging up the phone.

(54:47) And we just decided first paper of 2015 is going on the front page. (54:52) Council refuses to answer questions about child abuse payments that it's making out of court. (54:58) And so we ran these stories basically saying the council is covering up child abuse.

(55:05) You know, we got child abuse charities to comment. (55:07) And then, you know, we're sort of hoping in the background that my appeal would be fruitful. (55:15) But in the meantime, I'm just sat at my desk one day.

(55:17) It was a snowy day. (55:19) The office was freezing cold. (55:20) I remember my I was so cold that my knuckles hurt.

(55:26) And because the heating never worked in that building, it was ridiculous. (55:29) So I was sat there. (55:31) I didn't take my scarf or coat off all day in the office.

(55:34) I must have looked like Fagin. (55:37) And and I get a phone call from reception that says there's somebody in reception that wants (55:42) to talk to you. (55:42) I go, oh, God, because almost always if somebody walks into reception, then they're a nutter.

(55:47) But I went down and it was a guy called Robin, who was in his mid 70s. (55:55) He was a retired health service manager. (56:00) And he said, are you the guy that wrote the stories about the Essex Council child abuse (56:04) payments? (56:04) I said, yeah.

(56:05) And he said, I've got to tell you something. (56:07) So I took him into the boardroom and he just told me this story about how when he was the (56:11) district psychologist for Southend. (56:13) So he was the head of the entire psychology department for Southend-on-Sea.

(56:18) His department had been asked to help strategize the official response to the discovery of (56:26) a pedophile ring, which had dozens of victims. (56:30) And the victims were, as you can imagine, badly psychologically damaged and were experiencing (56:37) all sorts of issues ranging from self-harm to suicide attempts to wanton criminality (56:44) to sexuality was corrupted and they were starting to abuse younger children and all (56:53) sorts of stuff was going on. (56:55) And he said, we started working on this case, then it all got covered up.

(56:59) It was, you know, outrageous what happened. (57:03) You know, we knew that there was this big ring. (57:05) They told us there was a big ring.

(57:07) They told us about all these victims and all of a sudden it was like the whole thing (57:11) just got shut down. (57:12) So it may have nothing to do with these payments that you're writing about, but maybe you're (57:18) the right person to tell if you're interested in this kind of story. (57:22) And that was where it all began.

(57:24) And a year later, I was sat in the office of the police commissioner for Essex and he (57:32) was announcing that as a result of what we'd found out, they were reopening the case of (57:37) this 25-year-old pedophile ring investigation. (57:42) And that was your interview in the bonus episode, right? (57:45) That was the guy, but that wasn't the interview. (57:47) So yeah, yeah.

(57:49) Nick Alston. (57:50) And he's now a director of the National Crime Agency. (57:53) So he's actually even more important than he was then.

(57:58) Pardon? (57:59) Pardon? (58:00) Do you still have a relationship with him of some sort or? (58:03) Yeah, well, I rang him up when I was doing the podcast and said, are you willing to do (58:07) an interview? (58:08) He said, let me listen to the series and then I'll let you know. (58:12) And he listened to the series and said, yeah, sure. (58:16) So we recorded an interview as a bonus episode where he was reflecting on us having brought (58:25) the case to him and what he did about it and what he hoped would happen as a result (58:29) and what actually happened.

(58:31) And he's he's a really interesting guy, you know, and he's, as I say, he's a national (58:36) he's he's the direct a director of the National Crime Agency now. (58:42) And on that ninth episode, the bonus episode of the podcast, he's used it to call for the (58:50) government to change the way that it's publishing and allowing access to records on police and (58:56) court cases in the UK. (58:57) And that's quite a bold thing for him to do.

(59:01) So he's opening it, making it transparency or more transparency. (59:06) He wants more transparency. (59:07) I mean, he can't do it on his own, but yeah, because in the UK, our system is very different (59:12) than your system.

(59:13) So if you listen to a series like In the Dark, which is a fantastic American true crime (59:19) podcast series, their season two was all about a guy called Curtis Flowers who kept (59:26) being prosecuted over and over again for a murder that he quite clearly or a multiple (59:31) murder that he clearly did not commit. (59:34) And, you know, in In the Dark, they just like they're going, oh, well, we wanted to find (59:40) out what happened in this case. (59:41) So we just went down to the police archive and looked through all their files.

(59:44) Right. (59:44) In England, you can't do that. (59:47) You cannot access a police file.

(59:50) You can't access a court file. (59:52) Nothing. (59:53) I mean, it's all secret.

(59:54) It's all off limits. (59:55) You could try and fight in court to get access. (59:58) You could try, but it would take a lot of money and a lot of time, and you would not (1:00:02) be guaranteed success.

(1:00:04) Whereas in America, you can just make a phone call. (1:00:06) Like the state of the UK, like the UK government is doing that. (1:00:10) Right.

(1:00:10) Is it for privacy reasons or? (1:00:13) I'm sure that would be the excuse they would use. (1:00:15) But I mean, yeah, it's ridiculous. (1:00:19) The amount of secrecy in the UK.

(1:00:21) I remember seeing Carl Bernstein podcast and in listening to the podcast, hearing all (1:00:26) of those roadblocks you went through just to get some additional information here and (1:00:30) there was pretty astonishing. (1:00:32) I have submitted so many information requests in that case and have several outstanding (1:00:39) still, some of which I'm still at the first appeal stage, some of which I have reported (1:00:47) bodies to the information commissioner. (1:00:50) It's disgraceful, the UK system.

(1:00:52) So our Freedom of Information Act has a clause within it which says that they can refuse (1:01:00) to publish information if it might upset somebody. (1:01:03) So I'm investigating violent pedophiles who abused hundreds of children over their (1:01:12) lives, many of whom are completely destroyed as human beings, homeless, drug addicted, (1:01:21) mentally ill. (1:01:22) Many of them attempted suicide.

(1:01:25) Some succeeded. (1:01:27) Some died of drug overdoses. (1:01:28) The web of damage which emanates from these guys, thousands and thousands of people, these (1:01:35) people's parents, their siblings, their friends, their aunts and uncles and grandparents (1:01:39) have all had their lives destroyed by what these men did to these kids.

(1:01:45) If I want to find out about the crimes that these men committed, then I'm not allowed (1:01:50) because it might upset their sister. (1:01:52) It might upset their mum. (1:01:53) It might upset their next door neighbour who they were quite friendly with.

(1:01:56) It's a disgrace. (1:01:57) Our system is a disgrace. (1:01:59) Our freedom of information system is ludicrous and pathetic and disgraceful and it provides (1:02:06) a cover for criminals, violent, depraved criminals, at the expense of victims who have a right (1:02:14) to know about these guys and have a right to transparency because there are still unanswered (1:02:24) questions and it's still not really explained why these guys were allowed to get away with (1:02:29) what they did.

(1:02:30) They were effectively allowed to get away with it. (1:02:32) They were looking at life sentences and they ended up with three and four years and they'd (1:02:36) already served a year waiting for their trial and in the UK you only serve half your sentence (1:02:41) before they let you out. (1:02:42) So one of those guys did six months for years.

(1:02:47) Six months because he got a three-year sentence. (1:02:50) He'd done a year on remand waiting for his trial. (1:02:53) That meant that to get to the halfway point he had six months left.

(1:02:56) Right. (1:02:57) So he went to court and pleaded guilty to abusing dozens of children. (1:03:03) Six months.

(1:03:04) And we're not allowed to know about that guy because it might upset his great aunt. (1:03:11) You know, it's just a disgrace. (1:03:13) It is disgraceful in the way that it's not like it's hearsay.

(1:03:16) These are things that happened, right? (1:03:18) They had a trial. (1:03:19) They pleaded guilty. (1:03:21) And there was a confession.

(1:03:23) Yeah, they pleaded guilty. (1:03:25) They pleaded guilty to reduce charges, but it was clearly stated in court that there (1:03:29) were dozens of victims. (1:03:31) And it's not slanderous when it's truth.

(1:03:33) That astonishes me. (1:03:36) And all we want to know is why. (1:03:38) Why did you give them this deal? (1:03:40) These guys have come to court and admitted to the violent abuse of dozens of children.

(1:03:49) That's only in that case. (1:03:51) These guys had multiple convictions anyway, right? (1:03:53) And they've probably admitted to it because they know they're getting off in some way, (1:03:57) right? (1:03:57) They know they have something. (1:03:59) They pleaded guilty at the last minute on a plea deal.

(1:04:02) So they were facing conspiracy charges and buggery charges. (1:04:07) Buggery would now under the law now be charged as rape. (1:04:10) But at that time it was called buggery.

(1:04:12) And between the conspiracy charges and the buggery charges, they were looking at 15 years (1:04:18) to life. (1:04:19) And all of a sudden they come to court on the day of their trial. (1:04:23) The conspiracy charge is taken off the indictment.

(1:04:27) The buggery charges are all downgraded to attempted buggery. (1:04:31) And then they plead guilty. (1:04:33) So they did a deal to plead guilty to these reduced charges.

(1:04:38) The prosecutors said that they had done it to spare the boys from having to testify. (1:04:43) But none of the boys were consulted. (1:04:46) They weren't asked.

(1:04:48) So and then when they came to sentencing, the court smeared all those boys as prostitutes. (1:04:54) Some of these boys were eight, nine, 10 years old. (1:04:56) And the court was told these boys were prostitutes who instigated their own abuse.

(1:05:01) And so they weren't damaged by what was done to them. (1:05:04) So how can how can you have not consent for one thing, but consent to be a prostitute? (1:05:10) Exactly. (1:05:11) How can I like that? (1:05:12) Yeah, that's like an Oberos, right? (1:05:15) That's like the snake that eats his own tail.

(1:05:16) That makes zero logical sense. (1:05:18) It was ridiculous. (1:05:20) And the judge then sentenced on the basis that the damage to the boys was perhaps limited.

(1:05:27) And so they got these weak, feeble sentences. (1:05:32) And supposedly this was all done in the boy's interest. (1:05:35) How is it in the boy's interest to have their abusers released after six months and in the (1:05:40) meantime, call them all prostitutes who wanted to be raped? (1:05:44) How is that in their interest? (1:05:46) And when I found one of these boys, he was furious.

(1:05:49) He didn't even know this had happened. (1:05:51) Nobody ever told him. (1:05:52) All he knew was that the guys went to jail.

(1:05:55) Nobody had ever told him about the plea deal. (1:05:57) Nobody had ever told him about what they said about the boys in court. (1:06:00) He was furious.

(1:06:02) And all we want to know is why. (1:06:05) We know that one of them was a police informant. (1:06:07) We found that out as part of our investigation.

(1:06:11) And that was Mr. King, right? (1:06:14) That was Mr. King, Dennis King. (1:06:16) Right, that was Derek King? (1:06:17) Dennis. (1:06:17) Dennis King.

(1:06:18) Yeah, Dennis King. (1:06:20) But we don't know what they were informing on, because what could you be informing on (1:06:24) that's important enough to merit downgrading the sentence for his own offenses, which were (1:06:29) so depraved and so serious? (1:06:33) It's hard to imagine what he could have been informing on that would merit that reduction (1:06:37) in sentence. (1:06:38) And that's what we want to know.

(1:06:40) That's what we're trying to find out through all of these information requests. (1:06:44) CPS, which is the prosecution service, to the police, to the probation service, to (1:06:51) the courts, to the National Police Chiefs Council. (1:06:55) We have all of these open requests to the Ministry of Justice, the prison service.

(1:07:00) None of them will give us the files, apart from the prison service. (1:07:04) The prison service did give us the files that survived, but they didn't answer the question. (1:07:08) But they just keep refusing.

(1:07:12) And they're all now using the same excuse. (1:07:15) And the excuse is the Freedom of Information Act says that if it's conceivable that in (1:07:20) theory, releasing this information might upset one person, we don't have to give it to you. (1:07:25) It's just disgraceful.

(1:07:27) It reminds me of some current policies that are in place where the intent initially was (1:07:33) good, but now it's gotten to the point where it's ridiculous, right? (1:07:36) It's like a backwards policy. (1:07:37) It actually hurts the initial cause that you're trying to fight for in the first place. (1:07:43) I think it's the sort of thing that's buried in the act and is used as a last resort when (1:07:50) they're really scrambling for a reason not to give something to you.

(1:07:53) Because, and even then, there's supposed to be a public interest balance. (1:08:01) So they are supposed to say, if we balance the potential upset to this one person against (1:08:10) the public interest and the public interest wins, then we have to give you the information. (1:08:16) There is no argument to be made that the public interest doesn't win in this case.

(1:08:21) No argument. (1:08:22) And yet they always tell us that we failed the public interest test. (1:08:26) And what it is, is they know that if we had the means to take it to a court case, we (1:08:33) would win.

(1:08:34) Hands down, we would win. (1:08:36) But you've got to have the means to do that. (1:08:38) You've got to have the money to be able to take them to court and get it overturned.

(1:08:43) And there are not many media organizations now that would have the money to do that, (1:08:48) unless you're like CNN or the BBC or someone. (1:08:52) And so they know that even though they're wrong and they're using this exemption in (1:09:01) an arrogant and almost like a sneering, smirking way, there's nothing we can do about it. (1:09:08) And that's the most infuriating thing, because they're not just smirking at me.

(1:09:12) They're smirking at every child that these men molested. (1:09:15) They're smirking at their mothers. (1:09:17) They're smirking at the mothers and fathers of men who are now dead because they've shot (1:09:22) themselves or hanged themselves.

(1:09:29) That's unbelievable. (1:09:32) It's so frustrating because in the podcast, you even mentioned like these are pedophiles. (1:09:39) This isn't like Whitey Bolger, like in the United States, where these are gangster people (1:09:44) who chose this life of crime.

(1:09:46) This is pedophiles that affects children directly. (1:09:49) How could you have a police informant be a pedophile or be an absolved pedophile or (1:09:54) be absolved for being a pedophile? (1:09:57) Yeah, exactly. (1:09:59) Using an informant is all fine and dandy if you're using somebody who is down the pecking (1:10:05) order and is going to give you somebody more important.

(1:10:08) If you bring in a small time drug dealer and you say, we'll let you off if you tell us (1:10:13) who the kingpin is, that makes sense. (1:10:15) But to take somebody who is on an industrial scale, pimping small children out to men, (1:10:25) what could he be informing on that is more depraved and more important? (1:10:33) Vile, right? (1:10:34) Yeah. (1:10:34) What could he possibly... (1:10:35) Now, we do have one possible theory, which is that through my investigation, we actually (1:10:44) connected this guy, Dennis King, to a gang of pedophiles that murdered... (1:10:51) Well, they killed a number of children.

(1:10:54) They were not convicted of murder. (1:10:56) They were convicted of manslaughter. (1:10:58) This gang, they were called the Dirty Dozen.

(1:11:01) They were led by a guy called Sidney Cook. (1:11:03) They killed three boys. (1:11:06) I mean, it was... (1:11:07) So they argued that it was not murder.

(1:11:09) It was accidental. (1:11:11) It happened in the course, in the commission of another act. (1:11:16) And... (1:11:16) Yeah, the byproduct of grieving.

(1:11:19) Yeah, exactly. (1:11:20) So we connected King to the Dirty Dozen, and we do know that King is a police informant (1:11:30) because we have that document, and we do know that the two cases were ongoing at the same (1:11:36) time. (1:11:36) So it's a theory, and it's an unproven theory, and I wouldn't want to suggest that it's fact.

(1:11:41) But it's possible that King informed on another pedophile gang that were actually killing (1:11:49) children. (1:11:49) That would be the only world in which that plea deal makes sense. (1:11:57) Now, my suspicion is that that's not what happened, because if it is, then they would (1:12:01) just tell us, because it would actually make them look less shit for having given the deal, (1:12:07) right? (1:12:08) So if they were to go, oh, well, yeah, we did, and it's not ideal, but look who he gave (1:12:13) us, because he's dead now.

(1:12:15) So it doesn't matter. (1:12:15) There's no reason to keep protecting him as an informant. (1:12:19) But the fact that they won't do that, and they keep trying to cover it up, suggests (1:12:23) that actually it's not that, and there was something else going on.

(1:12:25) But it remains a potential solution, potential explanation. (1:12:32) Is it a thought, possibly, that, and once again, we question everything. (1:12:38) We're not on board with every conspiracy, but we do question things.

(1:12:42) Chris and I do. (1:12:43) Could it possibly be that they penciled him in as police informant, where he just was (1:12:47) connected or had dirt on other people, say, like an Epsteinian kind of control? (1:12:53) I believe that is also possible, because as the series, as the podcast goes into, so the (1:13:01) first kids come forward, and then the social services department in Essex asks three charities (1:13:09) to start counselling the first 14 victims that are known of. (1:13:14) And those boys start naming other boys who start naming other boys, and the web of victims (1:13:20) gets bigger and bigger.

(1:13:22) And something else that happens during these counselling sessions is the charities all (1:13:27) realise that different boys are naming a particular police officer who was regularly (1:13:33) at Dennis King's flat. (1:13:35) Now, it could be, if Dennis King is an informant, that there is a good reason for a police officer (1:13:41) to be constantly going in and out of his flat. (1:13:43) Although you would think that a police officer might be a little bit concerned at the fact (1:13:49) that somebody who already has about 20 convictions for child molesting would have boys in his (1:13:55) flat every time that he'd go there.

(1:13:59) So maybe that's not the explanation. (1:14:01) So maybe... (1:14:01) Well, plus, if he was an informant, I don't know if you'd meet at the person's house, (1:14:05) considering he'd be informing on people that probably have been there, you know? (1:14:11) Yeah, it would not seem like a sensible... (1:14:14) It sounds like very shallow water we're treading here. (1:14:16) It's a safety issue for sure.

(1:14:17) Yeah. (1:14:18) So it does suggest that maybe there was another reason for that officer to be constantly (1:14:23) going there. (1:14:23) But interestingly, none of the boys ever said that this officer did anything to them.

(1:14:28) But they all said that he was in and out of the flat regularly. (1:14:34) Now, the other thing that we know is that when the case was first cracked, when they (1:14:39) first arrested King and Tanner, a detective spoke anonymously to a tabloid newspaper called (1:14:47) The Mirror and said that they believed that there were high-powered people connected to (1:14:52) the ring, including businessmen and civil servants. (1:14:56) So, again, was King just connected and did they call him an informant? (1:15:01) But that was just an excuse for giving him leniency.

(1:15:04) Who knows? (1:15:05) I mean, these are the questions that are unanswered. (1:15:07) And there's all sorts of theories that we can speculate and debate. (1:15:13) Is there a way to find these answers? (1:15:14) Or does someone have to start talking for these things to get uncovered more? (1:15:19) Someone needs to start talking or they need to start giving us the paperwork that we're (1:15:25) asking for.

(1:15:25) You know, I mean, again, the guy is dead, you know, so it doesn't matter. (1:15:31) Even if... because there are rules around covert... (1:15:34) They call them CHIS, Covert Human Investigate... (1:15:37) What is it? (1:15:38) Covert Human Intelligence Source, CHIS. (1:15:42) There are rules around protecting your CHIS, your informant.

(1:15:47) But if they're dead, they don't need to be protected anymore. (1:15:50) And yet instead of just going, OK, because if they were to just tell us the information, (1:15:56) the story would be published next week and then we would never have a reason to write (1:16:00) about it again. (1:16:02) That would be it.

(1:16:03) The story would be over for the rest of all eternity. (1:16:05) There would be no reason for anybody to be writing about Dennis King and Essex Police (1:16:09) anymore. (1:16:10) So why don't they just give us the information? (1:16:12) You know, it's... and they're fighting tooth and nail and using such sort of harebrained, (1:16:19) pathetic reasons not to give us the files that it really... (1:16:22) They're just buying every minute that they can, it seems like.

(1:16:25) Yeah, it's laughable, the excuses that they're using. (1:16:28) You know, we can't tell you about this guy in case it upsets his cousin. (1:16:33) You know, I mean, pathetic.

(1:16:35) I mean, this guy was estranged from his family anyway for various... (1:16:41) because he was a serial... (1:16:44) Pedophile. (1:16:46) I mean, I'm not laughing at the situation here, but it's like that's what he was. (1:16:51) He was... (1:16:51) He had almost 40 sexual convictions, I think, at the time that he died, if not more.

(1:16:56) And in the podcast, you mentioned 27 prior to, I think, 95 and then another 13. (1:17:02) So I counted 40 just from what you shared. (1:17:04) Yeah, and these included molesting children, (1:17:09) photographing it and then decorating his flat with the photographs.

(1:17:14) It included possessing images of people having sex with corpses. (1:17:18) I mean, this was a sick guy. (1:17:21) You know, this was not somebody that you invite to the family barbecue.

(1:17:25) So it seems like such a pathetic reason to keep using, to withhold the files. (1:17:31) It really does make you wonder what is in those files. (1:17:34) Is it cock up or is it conspiracy? (1:17:38) Is it that just the way that they dealt with this guy was such a cock up (1:17:42) that they don't want the embarrassment of admitting it? (1:17:46) Or is it that there was something nefarious going on? (1:17:48) It seems it has to be one of those two things.

(1:17:52) And, you know, I mean, if I win the lottery next week, (1:17:55) then I'll take him to court and I'll find out. (1:17:57) But in the meantime, I just have to keep plugging away (1:17:59) through all the free avenues that are available to me. (1:18:03) Charles, it seems obvious from listening to the podcast and talking to you today.

(1:18:08) What how high up do you think this goes? (1:18:11) It's it seems like there's multiple people at high levels pulling strings (1:18:16) to get Dennis King and several other people (1:18:22) horribly reduced sentences for monstrous crimes. (1:18:26) It's an interesting question. (1:18:28) I can't give an answer to you, really, because I don't know.

(1:18:33) I mean, what I can say is that I have noticed a change across the spectrum (1:18:40) in the way that my information requests are being dealt with. (1:18:43) And they are all now coming back with the same excuse for not giving us the information. (1:18:48) And it's this thing that you can't get around this.

(1:18:51) It might upset somebody. (1:18:53) It might upset somebody and you failed the public interest test. (1:18:57) They're all now parroting the same line.

(1:19:00) And it seems very coincidental because a couple of years ago, (1:19:04) nobody had ever used that as an excuse. (1:19:08) And now every time I submit a request on King to any government body, (1:19:13) I get the same response. (1:19:15) We can't give you that because it might upset someone.

(1:19:18) So I do suspect that there is some sort of communication going on (1:19:24) between government departments as to how to get out of publishing the files. (1:19:30) Beyond that, I can't really say, you know, because it just would be speculation. (1:19:37) Yeah, of course.

(1:19:38) I just don't know. (1:19:39) And you're a professional journalist. (1:19:41) You're not on a wild witch hunt here.

(1:19:43) You're following where the trail leads you. (1:19:45) You're not making a trail yourself. (1:19:48) Well, yeah, you know, I mean, it's, um, I, it came to me in my day job and it's, (1:19:56) it's no longer really my day job just because I don't work.

(1:19:59) The yellow advertiser where I was working at the time closed down, (1:20:03) um, as is explained in the final episode of the series. (1:20:07) And, uh, my new job, um, I made the podcast, but it's not really my patch anymore. (1:20:15) Uh, so it's a bit of a, like a passion project, I guess for me, but I have to remain objective (1:20:23) and also, uh, try not to get too involved, um, and to sort of bog down with it because (1:20:32) it's one of the, it's one of those, again, like when I was talking earlier about a trial, (1:20:36) how if you know a trial too well, there are so many avenues you can go down and (1:20:41) tangents that it can be really difficult to lose any sort of narrative center.

(1:20:48) Um, and with this case, I mean, this is the kind of thing that, you know, (1:20:52) like a ripperologist, you could end up spending your whole life just obsessively (1:20:58) investigating and never getting anywhere. (1:21:00) So I have to be careful not to get too obsessed with it. (1:21:06) So I kind of, but just the other day I got a healthy distancing, right? (1:21:11) Yeah.

(1:21:11) You know, pick it up every now and then. (1:21:13) And, but just the other day, sorry. (1:21:15) Yeah.

(1:21:16) Just the other day, I got an email. (1:21:18) Um, I'm trying to remember what day it was. (1:21:20) I think it was Wednesday.

(1:21:21) It was the day before New Year's Eve. (1:21:25) I think that was Wednesday. (1:21:26) So I got an email from a guy who said, I have just listened to your podcast.

(1:21:31) And, uh, I know some of the people in the podcast, some of the police officers. (1:21:36) Um, and I think I've got some information that would be useful to you. (1:21:39) And I ended up ringing this guy and interviewing him for two hours.

(1:21:42) And so I got some great new info out of that guy, but I'm not sure what to do with it (1:21:46) because the podcast is finished. (1:21:49) So, um, unless there's any major breakthroughs, I think the story is pretty much done. (1:21:54) But it's more of a principle for me that I don't think they should be allowed to get away with.

(1:22:02) Keep withholding these documents on these flimsy bases. (1:22:05) So I do keep just, I do just keep fighting with them over these documents. (1:22:11) I'm not really doing much else on the story anymore, but I do maintain the battle (1:22:16) over all the records because I do just think that's so egregious, you know, to (1:22:22) the way this of smirking in everybody's faces.

(1:22:25) But this is, it reminds me of like when somebody shows up somewhere and they've got two black (1:22:29) eyes and their lips split open and somebody says, what happened? (1:22:32) And they go, walked into a door. (1:22:35) It's just sort of like arrogant, like smirking. (1:22:40) I just hate it.

(1:22:41) And, um, and so I, I kind of don't want to let them off the hook on, on that front. (1:22:47) Yeah. (1:22:47) I mean, there is a greater fight here for, for just transparency in general from the (1:22:51) state or government or other organization or systems.

(1:22:55) Chris and I very much look behind the curtain of systems, right? (1:22:59) And the control that they have and how they kind of control us in that way, you know, (1:23:05) and it's not, it's not to fight powers. (1:23:07) It's just to be aware of them so we can navigate them better. (1:23:10) Yeah.

(1:23:11) And if something could come out of this, even if it was not a solution to the Shoebury case, (1:23:16) but it was a commitment to being more open with documents in terms of police and court (1:23:25) files, that would be great. (1:23:27) You know, and to have Nick Halston at the national crime agency in our corner on that (1:23:32) one is really useful. (1:23:35) That is amazing.

(1:23:36) We need more than Nick Halston, but Nick Halston is a good start. (1:23:40) That's excellent. (1:23:42) Charles, you said on the podcast that there was a total of 83 victims.

(1:23:45) Is that correct? (1:23:47) So there's no definitive total because, uh, I mean, even when victim six emerged, uh, (1:23:55) who appears in the sixth episode of the series, he gave us names. (1:23:59) He gave us a list of names that he knew of people that have been involved with King and (1:24:03) Tanner, and about half of them were on the list and half of them were not. (1:24:07) So he gave us new names.

(1:24:09) Um, so the way that the list was created was that, uh, these charities were brought in (1:24:15) to counsel the initial, the initial 14 victims. (1:24:19) So they start counseling the victims. (1:24:21) And of course they start naming other people saying, oh, well, I was there with Johnny (1:24:25) and then, uh, you know, Johnny showed up one day with Barry.

(1:24:30) Obviously these are all fake names, but, um, so, so the charity started writing down all (1:24:36) these names. (1:24:37) So like, oh my God, these 14 boys are saying there are other boys. (1:24:40) And then they start referring these other boys to the authorities.

(1:24:44) And then those boys are interviewed and then they start naming other boys. (1:24:47) And so what you find is that each little gang gets bigger and bigger. (1:24:54) And it even turned out there have been waves.

(1:24:56) This had been running for a while. (1:24:58) So there was an older generation of boys that have passed through these men's hands and (1:25:01) were now 19, 20. (1:25:04) And we were on the second or third generation by the time that it was discovered.

(1:25:09) Um, so through the work that the charities did, they compiled a list and they estimated (1:25:17) based on all that they knew that there were about 80 victims. (1:25:21) I think the list, there was a list that was created and it was given to social services (1:25:27) that was in about mid 1990. (1:25:30) And at that point there were about 63 names on it, something like that.

(1:25:34) Um, but they estimated there were about 80, you know, by the time they finished working (1:25:39) on the case. (1:25:39) But then, as I say, victim six gave us even more names, gave us new names. (1:25:43) So, um, who knows how many, and that's just in this one case, because King in particular, (1:25:50) he was convicted over and over and over again.

(1:25:53) And this is just the one he was convicted. (1:25:54) You know, these, these are the kids that he was convicted of on this occasion, but he (1:25:59) had like 10 similar cases throughout his life. (1:26:03) Um, so yeah, I mean, the number that they abused in total is colossal.

(1:26:12) And when you use the term pedophile ring, how many offenders are we talking about? (1:26:20) Again, that's, it's, it's hard to quantify. (1:26:23) So the boys started giving addresses that they'd been taken to, to be abused by other (1:26:28) men. (1:26:28) And some of those were home addresses.

(1:26:30) Some of them were public toilet blocks. (1:26:34) They were, um, bars and pubs and hotels. (1:26:39) And they, in many cases, didn't know the address because, you know, they were kids in the back (1:26:44) of a car, but they knew that they were taken near this particular landmark, or they recognized (1:26:49) that they were in a particular town.

(1:26:52) We know that the boys were taken to towns and villages all over Essex. (1:26:58) We know that they were taken to parts of London. (1:27:00) We know that some were taken as far as Brighton, some were taken up north.

(1:27:07) And the number of other abusers is just completely unknown. (1:27:13) And the idea of a pedophile ring as well, in a way, it's almost sort of a myth. (1:27:21) That's what it was called.

(1:27:22) It was called by the authorities at the time, the Shoebury sex ring. (1:27:26) So Shoebury was a town within Southend-on-Sea where King lived, and they called it the sex (1:27:34) ring because they knew that King and Tanner were sharing these boys with other men. (1:27:39) But in reality, it's not really a ring because to call it a ring sort of suggests, it's almost (1:27:47) like gives the impression of a top-down organized idea, like a structure.

(1:27:55) But there is no real structure. (1:27:58) So all it is is pedophiles who know each other and are networking, and they're just sharing (1:28:03) boys with each other. (1:28:04) And a lot of it grew up in prison because when sex offenders are imprisoned, they generally (1:28:12) are kept on a separate wing than the other offenders because they're, especially child (1:28:18) sex offenders.

(1:28:20) They're treated very poorly by the other inmates, from what I understand. (1:28:23) They're an enormous danger from the other inmates. (1:28:25) It's like a bad crime.

(1:28:27) I don't know what the right way to call it, but. (1:28:30) Yeah, if you're a gangster who killed another gangster, then there's kudos attached to that. (1:28:35) If you're somebody that abuses children, there is no kudos attached, unless you're on the (1:28:39) sex offender wing where people might look up to the best sex offender.

(1:28:44) But within the context of the prison, you're like the scum. (1:28:48) So all the other offenders want to kill you, basically. (1:28:52) So they keep the child sex offenders all together, which is a good idea for making sure they (1:28:59) don't get murdered.

(1:28:59) But it's a bad idea because it means that they all get to network. (1:29:04) So they all swap contact details. (1:29:07) They get to know each other.

(1:29:08) Then when they're on the outside, they can find each other. (1:29:11) And so what it created, much like exists on the internet now, there was no internet back (1:29:17) then, but on the internet now, pedophiles network. (1:29:20) But back then, they had to try to network in a safe way that didn't involve the internet (1:29:27) didn't exist.

(1:29:28) So the best way to do that was go to prison, meet a lot of other pedophiles. (1:29:33) And then when you're on the outside, you can form links. (1:29:36) And if you went down over and over again, then you made more and more contacts.

(1:29:40) So all that was happening was King and Tanner were sharing boys with other pedophiles that (1:29:46) they had met through this kind of system of underground pedophile network. (1:29:51) So it's not a ring in the sense. (1:29:53) See, Dennis King was described.

(1:29:55) King and Tanner were described in court as the ringleaders. (1:29:59) But really, they were grooming kids and they were charging other pedophiles to use them. (1:30:06) But to use the phrase ring, it just sort of suggests to call them the ringleaders of a (1:30:12) ring.

(1:30:12) It suggests that they're like the bosses, and then it's an organized top down structure. (1:30:17) But it's not. (1:30:18) It's just they're just sharing boys with all their pedophile mates.

(1:30:23) And there equally would have been pedophiles in other towns who would have been charging (1:30:27) King and Tanner to use their boys. (1:30:30) So it's not really a structure. (1:30:32) It's just that you have identified as investigators this particular small area of (1:30:41) a national network.

(1:30:45) And so that's why the contact stretched all over the country, you know, because they were (1:30:50) just sharing boys with other pedophiles that they knew all over the place. (1:30:57) It's just it still astonishes me. (1:30:59) I mean, it's crazy because like when I look at how when Chris asked, how deep does it (1:31:05) go or how high does it go, right? (1:31:06) The powers that be the two that we're aware of in the United States, the two big ones (1:31:10) are Weinstein with me, too, and all the Hollywood elites who are all famous and have a lot of (1:31:15) money.

(1:31:16) And then you've got the Epstein one, which he's pictured with two presidents of the United (1:31:22) States in two different pictures. (1:31:25) You know, it's pretty interesting because when I look at the Shoeberry piece, I ask (1:31:30) that same question. (1:31:31) How high like who really had control here? (1:31:34) How powerful were these people at the top? (1:31:37) Yeah, and it's, you know, the Epstein one is interesting because it's, you know, I've (1:31:46) watched the I've watched the Netflix thing and I've seen some other stuff about Epstein (1:31:51) and I find it, you know, the Internet community, the Epstein Internet people, I find them (1:31:57) really interesting because it's like, oh, Epstein had his photograph taken with someone.

(1:32:02) So that means they must be a pedophile. (1:32:04) Hang on, you know, I don't think it does. (1:32:09) I don't think it's not correlation does not equal causation here.

(1:32:12) Yeah, exactly. (1:32:13) You know, just I mean, Dennis King probably had lots of friends that were not pedophiles (1:32:17) that he met down the pub or, you know, he would have had relatives that he would have (1:32:21) had his pictures taken with various times in his life or whatever. (1:32:24) You know, not everybody Dennis King met was a pedophile.

(1:32:26) So the Epstein thing I, you know, clearly he was involved in some kind of sex trafficking. (1:32:33) I don't think that's disputed. (1:32:36) But I get a little bit like uneasy when I start seeing some of the loose connections (1:32:43) that you see on the Internet, like, oh, somebody flew on his plane once.

(1:32:46) So they're obviously in on it. (1:32:48) Yeah. (1:32:49) And I want to be clear that Chris and I come from what is it? (1:32:53) What is it from common sense, the law of common sense? (1:32:56) So we're not jumping to any conclusion in that sense, please.

(1:33:00) Yeah. (1:33:01) Yeah. (1:33:01) I mean, and I don't know inside out the Epstein case is Epstein or Epstein.

(1:33:06) It's all the same to us. (1:33:08) Okay. (1:33:09) One correlation that I found about Epstein and the Shoeberry case listening to your podcast (1:33:15) was that the recruitment because Epstein had girls recruit other girls.

(1:33:20) And you mentioned in the podcast, please correct me that if I'm wrong, there were boys recruiting (1:33:25) other boys. (1:33:26) Is that right? (1:33:27) That's correct. (1:33:28) Yeah.

(1:33:28) And in a way, I suppose, probably the same with Epstein. (1:33:32) It was a way to save yourself. (1:33:36) And that was the way they framed it.

(1:33:38) You know, if you want, if you don't want us to do you tonight, go and get someone else, (1:33:41) you know, and there was one that they kind of they called him the artful Dodger. (1:33:50) And so because he, you know, in the Oliver Twist story, he's shows up in London and this (1:33:57) other kid, this other sort of young, homeless kid comes and finds him the artful Dodger and (1:34:04) sings him a song in the film, you know, in the book, he doesn't sing him a song, but (1:34:07) and then says, I know a great place you can come to where you'll be safe and takes him (1:34:12) back to Fagin. (1:34:13) And of course, there's a whole discourse now about whether Fagin was a pedophile.

(1:34:20) I can't remember what he used to call. (1:34:23) Did he used to call Oliver my pretty? (1:34:24) He used to call him something, my pretty or my something like that, or something like that. (1:34:31) But anyway, so the awful Dodger lures Oliver back to Fagin's lair, where there are all (1:34:37) these other boys.

(1:34:38) And that was so they came to call this other kid, the awful Dodger, because they knew he (1:34:43) admitted that he had gone out and recruited other boys. (1:34:48) So the recruitment is really to hold someone else in front of the bus. (1:34:51) So you don't take the hit, basically.

(1:34:53) Yeah. (1:34:53) And what it turned out also then was that although they called this one guy, the awful (1:34:58) Dodger, that a lot of them became the awful Dodger because they all wanted to save themselves. (1:35:04) So it was initially when they started uncovering the story, this one guy seemed like they (1:35:09) called him the Dodger.

(1:35:11) But the more they found out, they realized that's how the web got bigger and bigger, (1:35:16) because they just were trying to bring other boys in to so that there was less chance that (1:35:22) they would be the one that ended up in the bedroom that night. (1:35:24) It's kind of like a reverse pyramid scheme, in a way, is like all the kids at the bottom (1:35:28) are the ones who are going to be, you know, abused first, you know, quote unquote, fresh (1:35:33) meat or whatever you want to call that for, you know, for predators like these guys are. (1:35:39) I mean, there were even boys who introduced their own younger siblings, you know, which (1:35:46) is just so sad.

(1:35:50) That was also true with Epstein. (1:35:52) Yeah, I think you're right. (1:35:54) I think, is that in the Netflix thing? (1:35:55) Yes, sir.

(1:35:56) Absolutely correct. (1:35:57) There was a sister who introduced a sister, and her story is absolutely heartbreaking. (1:36:02) Yeah.

(1:36:04) Yeah, I remember that. (1:36:05) Was it the artist? (1:36:06) Was she the artist? (1:36:06) Yes, correct, sir. (1:36:07) Yeah, yeah, I do remember that.

(1:36:08) Yeah. (1:36:10) Yeah, it's a terribly sad and depressing story. (1:36:14) And it's one that, you know, not one that you would choose to spend, I think now, six (1:36:21) years working on, just because it gets you down so much.

(1:36:28) But now you're in it, you just don't want to leave it till it's finished. (1:36:32) Because these poor people, it wasn't just the victims, it was the whistleblowers. (1:36:37) The whistleblowers, you know, the charity workers and the health workers who were working (1:36:43) with the victims, they had their careers destroyed because they started raising concerns (1:36:50) and complaints about the way this case was being handled.

(1:36:54) They were dismissed as insane. (1:36:55) They were called conspiracy theorists. (1:36:58) They were orchestrated top-down efforts to stop them from getting further employment.

(1:37:04) They were trashed to other employers, which was proved in one case. (1:37:09) One of these, one lady who's in the show, she, I'm trying to think if I named her in (1:37:16) the show. (1:37:17) I did, Jenny.

(1:37:17) So one of the lady that's in the show, Jenny Grinstead, she gathered evidence with her union (1:37:26) and filed a case against Essex Council. (1:37:29) She got evidence from like 10 witnesses, including members of staff at Essex Council who said (1:37:36) that the bosses at Essex Council had issued instructions to smear Jenny and stop her from (1:37:42) getting any further work in the county because she kept raising complaints about the way (1:37:47) this case was being handled. (1:37:48) And she won.

(1:37:49) She won her case and the council had to apologize. (1:37:52) It had to syndicate a memo of apology to all of its staff. (1:37:57) So she won.

(1:37:58) That's amazing. (1:37:58) But, you know, there was, she was blacklisted by Essex Council because she kept raising (1:38:02) concerns about this case. (1:38:04) And so, you know, it's not just the victims, although, of course, the victims are the biggest (1:38:09) losers in the whole situation.

(1:38:11) But the whistleblowers also suffered terrible consequences just for trying to help the victims. (1:38:19) And so there's a lot of people that you're trying to get closure for. (1:38:23) But I just become less and less optimistic about whether that closure is going to come.

(1:38:30) Right. (1:38:31) You know, it's really interesting, too, about that is I just lost my train of thought for (1:38:36) a second. (1:38:37) But you're talking, oh, for Jenny, getting that information is like she won this case.

(1:38:43) That's an amazing precedence for future cases as well, is it not? (1:38:49) Yeah, well, I don't think it was a court case. (1:38:51) I think it was like a dispute with the council through her union. (1:38:56) So I don't think it's a legal precedent.

(1:38:58) But I think the evidence was so I think she probably would have taken them to court if (1:39:03) they had not been able to sort it out between themselves. (1:39:06) And it took two years. (1:39:10) But she did get it sorted by having her union enter into a dispute with the council and (1:39:18) present all of this evidence, all of these witness statements from people saying, you (1:39:22) know, I was instructed she's never to work here again, you know, blah, blah, blah.

(1:39:28) She was really brave to take them on. (1:39:30) And good on her. (1:39:33) What about yourself? (1:39:34) Did you experience any threats or did you just more have administrative pushback? (1:39:42) Lots of administrative pushback.

(1:39:44) I at one point received a telephone call from a friendly person, the Essex police on my (1:39:54) mobile saying, from this point on, you need to assume that every call that comes into your (1:40:01) newsroom is being listened to. (1:40:07) I did have some other issues, but I, you know, it was, I couldn't definitively attribute (1:40:15) them to the case, to the Shoebury case, but there were some weird things that started (1:40:19) happening to me in terms of people who suddenly appeared in my life, who were suddenly around (1:40:29) all the time, out of nowhere, and asking me a lot of questions, which made me uncomfortable. (1:40:37) Now, Victim 6, it's not in the podcast, and I, there's so much that's not in the (1:40:43) podcast, because, you know, I worked on this for five years, and I had to try and carve (1:40:49) this story down into eight half hour episodes for the podcast, and there's so much that's (1:40:55) not in there.

(1:40:55) But Victim 6 had a break-in, and the person came in through the window, and the footprints (1:41:04) led to his internet hub, his modem thing, you know, whatever you call it, your Wi-Fi (1:41:11) box. (1:41:12) The person had come into his home, walked to his Wi-Fi box, taken the card out of the (1:41:20) back that had the Wi-Fi code on it, and then left. (1:41:25) And he called the police and reported it, but that was, I mean, who does that? (1:41:30) Who breaks into your house and steals your Wi-Fi code and then leaves? (1:41:35) Right, that's it.

(1:41:35) The only thing, right? (1:41:37) There was money in the apartment that was not touched, there was jewelry, all sorts (1:41:42) of stuff. (1:41:42) They came in, took the Wi-Fi password, and left. (1:41:47) I mean, that's creepy, you know.

(1:41:49) So there were things that happened, and I mean, it could be that just a deranged person (1:41:54) broke into his house and stole his Wi-Fi code. (1:41:57) That could be completely unconnected. (1:41:59) I'm not saying that that's definitively connected, but it seems highly unlikely.

(1:42:03) It's suspicious, yeah. (1:42:05) Well, that's the thing. (1:42:07) Chris and I question everything.

(1:42:08) We never definitively will tell you X equals Y or X plus Y equals Z, but that these things (1:42:14) happen in the same time does raise questions. (1:42:17) It's very curious to know that these things happened. (1:42:21) Yeah, and Robin had a drone then that kept the same two weeks period that this break-in (1:42:32) occurred.

(1:42:34) Robin, one of our whistleblowers, had a drone flying. (1:42:39) The first whistleblower, right? (1:42:41) Robin was the first guy, yeah, the NHS worker that came in. (1:42:44) He had a drone flying over his house over and over again.

(1:42:48) And then when the police showed up at victim six's house to talk to him about the burglary, (1:42:57) they started asking him loads of questions about Robin, even though it was, you know. (1:43:04) I mean, Robin's like nearly 80. (1:43:06) He couldn't climb through someone's window and steal their Wi-Fi.

(1:43:09) Besides which, I mean, what on earth was the motive? (1:43:13) And that was very suspicious, that the only thing they were interested in talking to victim (1:43:17) six about was Robin. (1:43:20) There was all sorts of weirdness that was going on, and some of it could be incompetence (1:43:25) or just, you know, stupidity or cock-up or, you know, one dunder-headed officer or something. (1:43:33) And then there was the, you know, the review, the official review into the case where the (1:43:39) police just didn't interview anyone.

(1:43:41) We gave them all the names and all the documents, and then for years afterwards, I'm tracking (1:43:46) all these people down myself and saying, oh, what did you tell the police when they did (1:43:50) the review? (1:43:51) They go, what review? (1:43:52) What police? (1:43:53) You know, we gave them your name, you know. (1:43:56) Right. (1:43:57) It reminds me of Corey Feldman, where he's like, I gave them the names.

(1:44:02) I gave them the names. (1:44:03) They kept going another direction, right? (1:44:06) Yeah, I mean, that was really, I mean, that did not get the press that it deserved, Corey (1:44:12) Feldman. (1:44:13) So yeah, Corey Feldman was interviewed in 93 or 94 by police who were investigating the (1:44:19) Geordie Chandler case, and he told them, Michael Jackson never touched me, and I don't believe (1:44:26) Michael Jackson's a paedophile.

(1:44:28) And the reason I don't believe it is because I have been abused by paedophiles in Hollywood, (1:44:34) and I don't believe Michael Jackson's a paedophile. (1:44:36) He's never done anything to suggest that he is, but here are the names of the people that (1:44:41) did abuse me. (1:44:43) And he gave them the names, and they said, yeah, well, we're not interested in them.

(1:44:46) We're only interested in Michael Jackson, right? (1:44:49) And so that's bad in and of itself. (1:44:52) You've got a victim disclosing to the police, giving the names of abusers and being ignored. (1:44:59) That is bad.

(1:45:01) What's even worse is that years later, when Corey Feldman told that story publicly, the (1:45:08) police department denied it. (1:45:10) They said that he's made that up. (1:45:12) That's not true.

(1:45:13) He didn't give us any names. (1:45:15) And then somebody leaked the tape recording of his police interview to the media, and (1:45:20) it proved that the police were lying. (1:45:23) He did say it, and he did give them the names.

(1:45:26) So not only did they not act on his information, they then years later smeared him as a liar (1:45:31) and accused him of making it up. (1:45:34) And this is the same police force that Dan Reed, the director of Leaving Neverland, he (1:45:42) gave an interview a while ago where he said, oh, yeah, as part of my rigorous fact-checking (1:45:46) process, I interviewed some of the police that worked on the Michael Jackson case, and (1:45:51) they all thought he was guilty. (1:45:52) So that was good enough for me.

(1:45:54) It's like this is the same police force, the same corrupt police force that refused to (1:45:59) investigate Corey Feldman's abuse allegations and then smeared him as a liar. (1:46:05) I mean, it's outrageous. (1:46:07) You know, this guy, Reed, just is brain melting.

(1:46:13) Absolutely. (1:46:13) Chapter Hyde, for sure. (1:46:15) And I understand the frustration because you've covered that so long as well.

(1:46:19) But I mean, going back to Shoeberry, you've been recognized for some nominations for some (1:46:25) awards, is that correct? (1:46:27) Yeah. (1:46:27) So we've been shortlisted three times at the British Journalism Awards and commended once. (1:46:35) Most recently, a couple of months ago, we were shortlisted for the podcast.

(1:46:43) We were shortlisted for the Paul Foot Award at Private Eye. (1:46:50) Now, let me remember the others. (1:46:52) We've been shortlisted for and won a number of Society of Editors Awards.

(1:46:57) I got Weekly Reporter of the Year, and I came runner up in the same category three times. (1:47:06) We got Weekly Newspaper Campaign of the Year. (1:47:08) We got the News Media Association's Making a Difference Award, and we won Channel 4 and (1:47:16) ITV's Ray Fitzwalter Award for Investigative Journalism.

(1:47:20) So we've won quite a stack of awards for the Shoeberry case, which is really, you know, (1:47:26) really lovely. (1:47:27) And it's quite funny because the lady, I won the Fitzwalter from Channel 4. (1:47:33) The lady that gave it to me was Dorothy Byrne, and she's actually the lady that commissioned (1:47:40) Leaving Neverland. (1:47:43) Wow, that's an odd connection.

(1:47:45) Yeah. (1:47:46) How awkward was that? (1:47:48) Me, how awkward was that exchange? (1:47:50) This was pre-Leaving Neverland, so I won that award in April 2018. (1:47:56) I have a picture of her giving me the award, and I would share it, but at the time, I was (1:48:02) really quite ill with a big kidney stone, which I eventually, a couple of months later, (1:48:09) I had to have a surgery to get rid of.

(1:48:13) And immediately before that award ceremony, I had a chronic attack of kidney stone pain, (1:48:20) and it was so bad that I was shaking and sweating. (1:48:24) It was like in ice-cold sweats, and I had to go straight to the award ceremony, and (1:48:34) I just looked like a tramp in all these pictures. (1:48:37) Like, my hair looks like I've just got out of a shower.

(1:48:40) I mean, the pictures are hideous, but I do have a picture of Dorothy Byrne giving me (1:48:46) the award. (1:48:48) Yeah, so that's an interesting one. (1:48:51) And she was perfectly nice and everything, you know, and I mean, she didn't make the (1:48:54) TV show.

(1:48:55) She just commissioned it, but unfortunately, she has defended it repeatedly since it came (1:49:01) out. (1:49:05) Charles, what do you have coming up? (1:49:07) What are your next projects? (1:49:10) That's a good question. (1:49:11) So I'm helping Taj, as and when I can, on his documentary, and I was hired around this (1:49:23) time last year to work on a documentary by a guy called Larry Nimmer.

(1:49:27) So Larry Nimmer worked on the Michael Jackson trial. (1:49:32) He's a videographer, and he was hired by the defense to film Neverland. (1:49:40) So the defense wanted to take the jurors to Neverland and show them around so they could (1:49:44) see all the locations that were being described in the case, and the judge said no.

(1:49:50) So the defense hired Larry Nimmer to go and film Neverland. (1:49:55) One of the most important things he filmed was the alarm test, because the prosecution (1:49:59) were claiming that Gavin Arvizo's brother had walked in on multiple occasions and seen (1:50:07) Michael Jackson molesting his brother. (1:50:10) And so they got Larry Nimmer to film an alarm test, because Michael Jackson, he was extremely (1:50:17) paranoid about security, because he used to get letters like threatening to kill his kids (1:50:23) and stuff.

(1:50:23) And so he had alarms all over his house, and he had combination locks on everybody's (1:50:29) bedrooms, and he had an alarm so that if anybody came into his bedroom, it sounded. (1:50:35) Because one time he came back from a tour or somewhere and came into his bedroom, and (1:50:41) then a fan jumped out of his closet and somehow got into Neverland and got into his closet. (1:50:47) So he had alarms everywhere, and including one on the door to his bedroom, right? (1:50:52) So when you walked into Michael Jackson's bedroom, it set off like a siren, like wah, (1:50:58) wah.

(1:50:59) So the prosecution's case was that this kid had walked into Michael Jackson's bedroom (1:51:04) twice and seen his brother being molested. (1:51:08) It's like, how could that possibly have happened? (1:51:10) Look at this alarm. (1:51:11) So anyway, Larry Nimmer was the guy that filmed it.

(1:51:15) Anyway, so he was making a documentary for the 15th anniversary of the verdicts in the (1:51:20) Michael Jackson trial, supposed to come out last June, but it all got delayed due to COVID. (1:51:25) So I worked on that, all manner of day-to-day newspaper journalism, a lot of COVID reporting, (1:51:33) a lot of... (1:51:34) I just did a project on falling police results, solved rapes in London. (1:51:43) I just did a series of stories on... (1:51:46) As in criminal cases solved? (1:51:50) Yes, exactly, solved rapes.

(1:51:52) So the percentage of criminal cases is falling of solved criminal cases? (1:51:58) Yeah, really, really badly. (1:51:59) So the percentage of rape and sexual assault cases, which is resulting in a charge in five (1:52:06) years, has dropped from 22% to 5% or 4%. (1:52:11) I mean, it's catastrophic.

(1:52:13) Is there any kind of reasoning for that? (1:52:17) There isn't really. (1:52:19) I mean, we did ask the police why, but they just come out with all sorts of Orwellian (1:52:26) gobbledygook, like, oh, maybe it's because we changed the way we recorded whether a crime (1:52:31) is solved or not. (1:52:32) It's like, oh, give us a break.

(1:52:33) You know, a lot of old cobblers. (1:52:36) So we do ask them, but we rarely get anything from them that amounts to something sensible. (1:52:44) Interesting.

(1:52:45) I just did a series of stories on drug dealing in Hertfordshire, which is a county just outside (1:52:50) London. (1:52:51) So I'm working on all sorts of stuff. (1:52:53) Well, we're about two hours in.

(1:52:56) Welcome to the time warp, Charles, because that felt like 10 minutes to me. (1:53:01) Is there anything else you want to share with our audience or with anyone else before we (1:53:05) call it a day? (1:53:07) Well, I probably should just give the link to the podcast. (1:53:10) Absolutely.

(1:53:11) And please give all your particulars. (1:53:13) And we will also post all of that in our show notes. (1:53:16) But please share with us all that.

(1:53:18) So I'm on Twitter at C.E. Thompson, which is spelt T-H-O-M-S-O-N. (1:53:26) And the podcast is available at www.podfollow.com forward slash unfinished dash one. (1:53:36) Unfortunately, forward slash unfinished is already gone.

(1:53:39) So unfinished dash one. (1:53:41) But you can get it through wherever you normally get podcasts from, whether it's Spotify or (1:53:47) iTunes or some other tech. (1:53:52) Yeah, we beer googled.

(1:53:54) I just beer googled unfinished Shoebury's Lost Boys podcast, and it came right up under (1:53:58) Apple. (1:53:58) So I just clicked on the first one. (1:54:00) Yeah, I'm not a techie person, so I always get like too deep in the list and then forget (1:54:06) all the rest.

(1:54:07) But it's definitely on Spotify and Apple podcast. (1:54:11) Podbean. (1:54:12) Is that one? (1:54:13) That sounds familiar.

(1:54:14) That is one. (1:54:14) Yes. (1:54:15) We actually use Podbean.

(1:54:18) Okay. (1:54:19) Yeah, I think it's on that. (1:54:21) I think it's on all of them.

(1:54:22) I think wherever you go for podcasts, you've got to find it. (1:54:24) It's called Unfinished. (1:54:25) My season is season two.

(1:54:28) Shoebury's Lost Boys. (1:54:30) Season one was made by my colleague Tom and investigated three unsolved killings of young (1:54:38) women in the east of England. (1:54:40) So that's worth a listen as well.

(1:54:43) Excellent. (1:54:43) We will share that as well. (1:54:45) Well, thank you again for coming on.

(1:54:47) And if there is something from this new information that you garnered and wanted to put something (1:54:52) together, maybe we can talk about working that out. (1:54:54) And feel free to reach out to us. (1:54:57) Sure.

(1:54:57) Yeah, I'll let you know. (1:54:58) And I feel like I've gone off on weird tangents and that this has all been a bit (1:55:08) fluid and directionless. (1:55:09) So apologies for that.

(1:55:10) But hopefully- (1:55:11) That's what we're designed to be. (1:55:12) That's what happens to us all the time. (1:55:14) It's conversation.

(1:55:16) We went the direction that it went. (1:55:18) We like to offer, just be open like that. (1:55:21) So I'm very happy with how the direction the conversation went, as fluid as it was.

(1:55:27) Okay. (1:55:28) Well, that's a relief then. (1:55:29) Okay.

(1:55:30) We approve. (1:55:31) We're less structured than most, but we try to reel it back. (1:55:35) But we were going to call our show tangents because we just kept going on them.

(1:55:39) But thank you again for joining us. (1:55:41) We're grateful for all of that information you shared. (1:55:45) Once again, it's Unfinished, Shoeberry's Lost Boys podcast.

(1:55:48) And once again, we will share all your particulars in our show notes when we release the episode. (1:55:54) Oh, and we should probably say square one as well. (1:55:56) Square one on Amazon Prime.

(1:55:59) Square one as well. (1:56:00) It's not called Amazon Prime. (1:56:02) Is it called- (1:56:02) Yes, Amazon Prime.

(1:56:03) Yeah. (1:56:04) Amazon Prime video, I believe. (1:56:05) Yes.

(1:56:06) Yeah. (1:56:07) Absolutely. (1:56:08) Chris, you always close us out.

(1:56:10) So feel free to close us out, sir. (1:56:11) Be excellent to each other and party on, dudes. (1:56:14) Take care, everybody.