celebrity
Celebrity Care Home Owner Admits Inability to Keep Child Residents Safe
Reality TV star and glamour model Ampika Pickston has conceded to Ofsted that she is currently unable to keep vulnerable children safe at the care home she runs that is funded by her West Ham United owner fiancé David Sullivan, Byline Times can reveal.
On 30 January, AP Care Homes – which is owned by Ms Pickston, who found fame on the reality show The Real Housewives of Cheshire from 2015 to 2017 – was restricted by the watchdog from caring for children until 22 April.
It was the second time in three months that the company’s sole home had been shut by Ofsted, which found that children had “suffered harm, due to serious and widespread safeguarding failures”.
This led Ms Pickston to launch legal proceedings against the body, claiming its findings were “dishonest” and “subconsciously” biased due to her celebrity profile.
Following its latest closure, the company contacted Ofsted – which inspects schools, colleges, child-minders, nurseries, and children’s homes in England – requesting a visit. It stated that it had “taken sufficient action to address the serious shortfalls” and that the restriction should be lifted.
But, during an inspection on 6 March of the ‘luxury’ five-bedroom home in Styal, Cheshire – bought with a £1.2 million loan from Sullivan, who made his money in the adult industry – Ofsted noted that, while AP Care Homes had made attempts to rectify the “serious shortfalls”, the company had not only failed to do so but that inspectors had uncovered further regulation “breaches”.
These included concerns around “unstable” management; “poor” recruitment that placed children at risk of being looked after by adults who had not been properly vetted; “insufficient staff” to safely care for children; and the “continuity of care for children” due to a high staff turnover.
Reporting that the facility’s employees do not “have the skills and experience to provide safe and effective care for children”, Ofsted said that the management team at AP Care Homes – of which Ms Pickston is the sole director – had accepted that the company should not be currently permitted to care for children.
An official report published on 16 April stated: “Prior to this latest monitoring visit, the provider [AP Care Homes Ltd] contacted Ofsted to report that they had taken sufficient action to address the serious shortfalls and that the grounds for restriction no longer applied.
“Inspectors were not satisfied that the provider had taken sufficient action to address the failings that led to the restriction notice being issued. Previous requirements are restated.
“Ofsted has raised additional requirements due to further breaches in regulation identified at this visit. The management team accepted the failings and stated that they do not believe that the restriction notice should be lifted. The restriction remains in place.”
Ms Pickston opened AP Care Homes on 27 July last year and has overseen a chaotic eight months in charge.
Since the company’s registration with Ofsted, there have been three responsible individuals and three managers, only one of whom was registered. Ofsted reported that there had been no registered manager in post since 13 September.
The current manager had, the watchdog said, submitted an application to register on three occasions, all of which had been returned as they were “not complete”.
These management issues have meant that Ms Pickston had, at times last year, been acting as the de facto manager, despite her not having “the skills and experience to operate a home in line with children’s homes regulations”. Ms Pickston had at one point allegedly “blurred professional boundaries” by taking a child back to her house.
Since Ofsted’s last visit on 30 January, the watchdog found that two members of staff had left and been replaced; while 14 employees had left the home since it first opened, which “raises concerns about the continuity of care for children”.
It stated that two independent monitoring reports conducted in February had been submitted to the body, which identified “concerns [around] safer recruitment processes, inadequate recording in physical intervention records and poor risk management practices”.
However, Ofsted found that managers had not used the information from the independent scrutiny of the home to “ensure improvement of practice in these key areas”. The company had also “failed to consider the way in which they appointed the independent person, to ensure impartiality”, as per the regulations.
Ofsted found that records of supervision practice did not demonstrate that managers provided all staff members with the correct supervision to improve the quality of care for children.
For example, it found that two new staff members’ supervision records were duplicated, with only the name changed, which “does not show that staff have individual time to talk about the care of children and the support systems in place [and is] a missed opportunity for new staff to discuss their learning and support needs”.
Since it most recently placed a restriction on AP Care Homes’ care for children on 30 January, Ofsted stated that the company had attempted to take steps to improve.
It noted the manager had submitted a “review of quality of care report”, which is intended to focus on the quality of the care provided by the home, the experiences of children living there, and the impact the care is having on outcomes and improvements for the children.
However, Ofsted said the report “did not focus on the experiences of children living in the home and the impact the care was having on outcomes and improvements for the children”, and that the manager had not “sought the opinions of children, their parents, placing authorities or staff” when compiling the report.
Katharine Sacks-Jones, CEO of children’s care charity Become, told Byline Times: “Reports of safeguarding failures in a home for some of our most vulnerable children are deeply concerning. The most important voices to listen to are those of children themselves.
“They are the experts in their own lives and their voices must be at the heart of the care system. Above all, we must make sure that every child in care gets the love, support and stability they need.”
Managers at Ms Pickston's home had also taken action to introduce documentation, but had “not considered how these documents would enable them to monitor and review care practices to improve the quality and safety of care provided to children”.
Although staff had attended training, Ofsted added that managers had not used their internal systems to evaluate the effectiveness of the training to improve the home’s practices. This meant that “opportunities had been missed” to ensure staff members knew how to report allegations, follow safeguarding procedures, and properly record physical interventions.
AP Care Homes’ management accepted this “continued shortfall”.
The watchdog said the company had taken action to report allegations made by a child to the local authority designated officer (LADO), who requested that the home’s responsible individual conduct an investigation into the allegations. But, despite the LADO providing direct guidance and support to the responsible individual and the manager, Ofsted found the company had failed to do so.
The restriction notice will remain in place until 22 April, when Ofsted will undertake a further monitoring visit.
AP Care Homes and Ms Pickston – who previously sold content of an adult nature on OnlyFans – have been contacted for comment.
There is no suggestion that David Sullivan – who has an estimated £1.2 billion fortune and who owns a 38.8% majority stake in West Ham – has any involvement with AP Care Homes beyond the provision of financing.
Caroline Flack’s Lawyer Suggests Decision to Charge her May Have Been ‘Driven by Desire’ to Appease Media as Met Police Probe Case
Caroline Flack's lawyer suggested this week that a decision by the Metropolitan Police to charge the late TV presenter may have been "driven by a desire" to appease the media, as he spoke out after the force confirmed that it will partly reinvestigate its decision to prosecute as "new evidence may be available".
The development comes after a Byline Times special investigation into the case, 'Closure For Caroline Flack: Her Family's Four-Year Search for the Truth', uncovered fresh information. It is the cover story for the April edition, out now.
The Crown Prosecution Service recommended that the former Love Island host be cautioned after an incident with her then boyfriend, Lewis Burton, in December 2019. This was overturned after an appeal from the Met, which resulted in the 40-year-old charged with assault by beating.
Caroline was found dead at her home in Stoke Newington, north London, in February 2020 with a coroner later ruling that she killed herself after learning of the impending prosecution and fearing the publicity a trial would attract.
Her mother, Christine Flack, has been critical of the police's handling of her daughter's case from the outset, and is fighting to uncover the truth about how decisions around charging her unfolded.
She told Byline Times: “It is a big gap in our understanding of one of the most important moments in the whole thing. It has left us as a family in a terrible, stressful position. It is time he cleared it up, so we can get some justice for Carrie.”
The cover of the April edition of the Byline Times featuring the special investigation into Caroline Flack's case
Christine has made a fresh complaint to the Met because her family has been left with "important unanswered questions".
Questioned about the decision to re-examine the case, Flack's lawyer, Jonathan Coad, suggested that the Met Police's relationship with the media may not be "entirely as it should be", telling Sky News: "One suspects the reason why police made this decision was to appease the press pressure, which I remember being there... that she should be charged to rebut suggestions, 'oh, well she's had special treatment because she's a celebrity'."
He continued: "So, it may be that this decision, which indeed is unusual to appeal it, was driven by a desire not to fall foul of the press, and be criticised by the press, in which case is an entirely wrong reason for the appeal to be made."
Following Caroline's death, police watchdog, the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC), conducted a review of the Met's decision to charge her, but did not find any misconduct. It did, however, ask the Met to apologise to Caroline's family for not recording the reason it appealed against the original CPS decision to only issue the presenter with a caution.
The force apologised in February last year, but Christine Flack rejected this, the BBC reported at the time.
The Met confirmed on 11 April that a new complaint was made by Flack's family last week which it referred to the IOPC.
In a statement to the Press Association, the Met said that the IOPC decided that "the majority of the matters had previously been dealt with and no further action was required" but "one aspect" of the complaint had been returned to the Met's Directorate of Professional Standards (DPS) for further consideration.
That, the Met said, relates to the "actions of officers in appealing an initial decision by the CPS not to charge Ms Flack, and because new witness evidence may be available". DPS officers are now making "further enquiries in relation to this".
The IOPC issued a statement confirming this.
Christine told the Mirror that she made the complaint to try to "compel" the officer who was at her daughter's arrest "to give the statement we think he should have given four years ago".
"We won't stop until we get the truth," she told the publication.
As Byline Times’ investigation spread across the British press, the journalists behind the exclusive, Dan Evans and Tom Latchem, spoke about how they went about investigating the case and uncovering fresh evidence.
Evans explained that, after the pair broke the Dan Wootton story for this newspaper, they approached Caroline Flack's family "to see if we could help her get those answers" and through "forensic investigative reporting" discovered that an arresting officer who had played a role in reversing the charging decision – but who had never been named publicly – had left the Met before the inquest took place in 2020, but returned to the force last year.
"This meant he had never given a statement about his role, leaving a gap in Christine's knowledge of what happened on the night of Caroline's arrest," Evans said.
"Tom and I were thrilled that Christine was able to use our findings to lobby the Met, which has announced its Directorate of Professional Standards is seeking to now bridge this gap in the evidence. It’s a breakthrough in the Flack family’s understanding of Caroline's arrest and subsequent charge."
Latchem added: "Christine is a grieving mother and deserves to know the full truth about what happened in the lead up to her daughter's death. We’re happy to have contributed even in a small way, and we will continue to ensure no stone goes unturned.
"At a time when media outlets are cutting funding for investigative journalism to the bone, our ongoing work with Byline Times seeking justice for Caroline, along with the Dan Wootton investigation, and all our other investigative work, shows how important public interest journalism can be for holding power to account."
British singer Olly Murs will headline the Flackstock festival, when it returns for its third year on 22 July. Money raised will be split equally between charities Choose Love, Mind, the Samaritans, and the Charlie Waller Trust.
‘The Royal Family’s Sustainability In Its Current Form Can No Longer Be Guaranteed’
In the end, months of conspiracy theories were silenced by a two-minute video.
After a strict media embargo, on Friday at 6pm, Kensington Palace released the statement recorded personally by Catherine, Princess of Wales.
In it, she revealed that, following her abdominal surgery in January, doctors had discovered cancer, and she was now being treated with preventative chemotherapy. She explained how she had sought to share this news appropriately with her young children, reassured the public that she was growing stronger, and finished with a moving message of hope to others undergoing treatment for the disease.
It would once have been unthinkable for members of the Royal Family to share details of their medical conditions, and yet, this seemed like the least extraordinary aspect of the video.
The closest comparison is perhaps 1997, following the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, when public and media disquiet effectively forced the Queen to address the nation.
Commentators have been divided on whether Kensington Palace was similarly forced into the statement as a result of mounting public pressure or if Kate would always have explained the details of her condition and was choosing a moment (the beginning of her children’s Easter holidays) that suited her.
Either way, the intense public and media pressure was undeniable. That tells its own story.
In 1997, the ‘public’ could only make its views known through opinion polls, mass gatherings, direct interventions (such as vox pops or letters) and, ultimately, through its arbiters in the press. Social media has upended that framework.
Newspapers now follow the internet’s lead. For weeks, conspiracy theories around Kate's absence from public life dominated the conversation on Facebook and X (formerly Twitter), and ranged from light-hearted nonsense to poisonous defamation.
In two clear ways, that leaked into the mainstream ecosystem.
The first surrounded the Mother’s Day photograph on 10 March, presumably released by Kensington Palace to reassure people that Kate was happy and well, surrounded by her family. UK media outlets published the image as issued and only began discussing the edits made to it after analyses began to trend on social media.
That was followed by ‘kill notices’ issued by multiple international press agencies, effectively declaring the photograph unfit to be used – a damaging rebuke to Kensington Palace and its credibility. That, in turn, led to a highly unusual tweet signed by Kate herself, in which she apologised and claimed responsibility for editing the picture as an "amateur photographer".
The second involved another type of photography: an amateur video at a Windsor farm store, purportedly showing Prince William and Kate in good spirits carrying shopping. Crucially, this video was published by the Sun – providing a key contrast with an earlier paparazzo photograph of Kate and her mother Carole Middleton in a car, which was only published abroad.
Some commentators questioned whether Kensington Palace had tacitly approved the video’s publication. Even more significantly, however, some mainstream journalists – notably Rachel Johnson in the Evening Standard – questioned or openly doubted whether the woman was really Kate at all. This might, once again, have demonstrated an example of social media conspiracy spilling into the mainstream – or, more troubling for Kensington Palace, a new dent in the armour of deference which still pertains to William and Kate in a manner that long ago escaped Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
This notion of deference is important.
In some ways things, have not significantly changed since 1936 when American newspapers openly discussed King Edward’s relationship with Wallis Simpson and the British media remained entirely silent.
Foreign media has aired theories about Kate that would not have been touched here. There still exists in Britain a culture either of widely-known open secrets or of journalists hoarding information about the Royal Family – and either dropping small public breadcrumbs or remaining entirely silent.
In some ways, that is legitimate: members of the Royal Family are human beings with the right to a private life. But they are also public figures with, crucially, public and constitutional roles.
This feeds into the most fundamental tension in our modern monarchy: the codependence of members of the Royal Family and the royal press pack.
William and Kate are considered positive assets by both the tabloid media and the monarchy itself – the press’ treatment of them is a far cry from the hounding of both William’s parents in the 1990s. That is a product of multiple factors: a change in tabloid and paparazzi culture, the fact William and Kate have not yet been publicly linked to a tabloid-friendly scandal, and because the couple cooperates.
The media knows that the Royal Family sells newspapers and seeks access. The Royal Family knows that the media sustains both public support for the monarchy and people’s appetite for information about it, and seeks positive coverage. Underlying both anxious institutions is the British public, on whose patronage both depend.
Ordinary people were concerned about Kate’s welfare, but they also wanted information as they would about any other high-profile celebrity. Kate, in turn, was entitled to privacy as an ordinary human being, but will also one day be Queen. Such is the woozy confluence of soap opera and constitution. These people function both as fodder for national entertainment and as instruments of the state.
During the past three months, the media has performed a strange dance, balancing a mostly justifiable interest in a public figure with a mostly unjustifiable interest in a private one – sometimes, it appears, with the cooperation of Kensington Palace, and sometimes, it appears, without.
The media wanted to push, but not too hard. The Palace attempted to manage the coverage and, in the end, through Kate’s video, resolved to produce its own. This appears to have been a power struggle that ended in stalemate.
Once this story dies down, the most important soul-searching will probably take place not in Fleet Street but Kensington Palace. Insofar as the monarchy is a political institution, it relies on trust, both from the media and public. Credibility is not easily replaced and the photograph incident will have damaged faith in its communications machine. Now Kate has revealed her diagnosis, more questions arise about why the princess was thrown into the centre of a PR storm while receiving treatment for cancer.
And yet perhaps the greatest question centres on Kate herself.
The monarchy is a barer institution than a few years ago, and a weaker one. While the King and Queen are liked and respected, they do not attract either the deference of the late Elizabeth II or the rock-star appeal of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex. Only William and Kate come close to embodying both the stability and glamour that the institution needs – and Kate above all. She is the most popular member of the family, and so indispensable that the modern monarchy can scarcely be imagined without her.
That, in turn, reflects the vulnerability of the institution: it can only ever be as strong as its cast. It cannot, constitutionally, just disappear – but it can fade into irrelevance or embarrassment. Its sustainability, in current form, can no longer be guaranteed.
Celebrity-Run Children’s Care Home Shuttered by Ofsted Again after Child Taken to Hospital
Ofsted has stopped vulnerable children being sent to live in a care home owned by reality TV star and glamour model Ampika Pickston and funded by her billionaire West Ham United owner fiancee David Sullivan for the second time in three months, Byline Times can reveal.
The extraordinary intervention made by the watchdog against AP Care Homes Ltd revealed that the sole child in its care had, within days of living at the home, been hospitalised following a “physical intervention” by staff while on another occasion police had to be called to help manage the juvenile’s behaviour.
The child was removed from the facility a week after arrival due to “concerns” expressed to the authorities by AP Care Homes Ltd that its own staff were unable to keep the child safe.
A catalogue of further serious failings was uncovered in a ‘monitoring’ visit on 30 January by Ofsted, which last November suspended AP Care Homes Ltd’s licence after it uncovered a series of safeguarding issues, before allowing it to operate again in early January amid legal threats from Ms Pickston.
The New Ofsted Report
In a damning report published on Tuesday, Ofsted found the company – which is owned wholly by the OnlyFans model, and bought its first property with a £1.2m loan from a company owned by her partner Sullivan, who made his money through pornography and sex shops – had failed to keep its child resident safe.
Issuing a notice “restricting accommodation at the home…with immediate effect”, the body said: “It is Ofsted’s view that it is unsafe to admit any other children to the home while this level of risk, ineffective leadership and poor management oversight continue. If children were admitted to the home, the risks would be exacerbated.”
Children’s care campaigner Martin Barrow said: “This latest Ofsted report is scathing about the management of the home, which raises questions about why the suspension was lifted, which came after threats of legal action by Pickston.”
We reported in January how Byline Times had received a heavy legal letter from Liverpool-based legal firm Brabners, acting for AP Care Homes Ltd, for investigating the initial Ofsted report which had suspended its licence.
The report had found that a sexual assault allegation made by a juvenile resident who had gone missing from the “luxury” four-bedroom home in Styal, Cheshire, was not referred to the watchdog. It recorded “significant and serious shortfalls” in the care provided to the child residents, including that Pickston had “blurred professional boundaries” by allegedly taking a child back to her house.
Brabners claimed on 16 January that the report by independent regulator Ofsted – charged with inspecting schools, colleges, child-minders, nurseries and children’s homes in England – was “flawed” and that reporting on it would be “defamatory”.
Pickston meanwhile launched a furious riposte against Ofsted. Branding its findings “dishonest” and suggesting her being in the “public eye” had led “subconsciously” to a negative bias toward her, she claimed “no harm has come to any children” in her care, and announced she was considering legal action.
On 14 February Ofsted announced AP Care Homes Ltd’s licence had been reinstated after a follow-up visit by the watchdog on 3 January found safeguarding standards were now being met. It stated that a new manager had started working at the home, and Pickston had confirmed she would no longer be involved in the management of the home.
One child was subsequently sent to live at the home, with insiders telling Byline Times that AP Care Homes Ltd received around £10,000 per child, per week, from the government.
However, two weeks before the publication of the report announcing the reinstatement of AP Care Homes Ltd’s licence, a further Ofsted visit on 30 January led it to again revoke the company’s ability to operate, after the home was deemed “unsafe” for children to live in.
Rights to Privacy
Despite staff having attended safeguarding training to enhance their skills and knowledge, as agreed as a stipulation of the suspension being lifted, Ofsted found they failed to “demonstrate this learning in practice”.
It reported that “police assistance had been requested to manage the child’s behaviour and keep them safe” during a “poorly managed” safeguarding incident, but that the placing local authority and Ofsted had not been notified.
Physical intervention had been used to “hold the child on more than one occasion”, but that had not been recorded. The child required hospital treatment for bruising and a knee injury after one incident.
Ofsted also found that the child made two allegations (though it did not specify what about) when living at the home, but they were “not appropriately responded to” by managers and staff who failed to report the allegations, meaning “other safeguarding professionals” were “unable to take appropriate action…to keep the child safe”.
The watchdog found that, because the child had been removed for their own safety “in [such] a poor and unplanned way” so soon after arriving, it meant that the child did not have “a positive ending to their time in the home”.
Recruitment checks inside the company were also found not to be “sufficiently robust”, with a “lack of consideration for when staff have previously worked in a position involving children and the reason why their employment ended”, which “potentially impacts on the safe care of children”.
In terms of AP Care Homes Ltd’s leadership management, Ofsted found its arrangements did “not provide stability in the home”. With no registered manager in post since 13 September last year, its new manager had not submitted a full application to register with Ofsted.
Meanwhile, the new responsible individual, Daren Roberts, informed Ofsted he had spent one day a week at the home since starting employment on 2 January, leading Ofsted to say it did not feel the current management arrangements were “effective”.
The monitoring visit was carried out due to “concerns that children’s rights to privacy could be compromised” and that “leaders and managers had not taken proactive steps to ensure that the privacy of children is appropriately protected.”
“The responsible individual and manager had not considered how media interest could affect children’s privacy and had not implemented any safeguarding measures to reduce the known risks,” it said. However, leaders and managers had identified the actions they would now take to address this, it added.
While it is not clear what this referred to, Pickston is famed for her role on ITVX reality show Real Housewives of Cheshire between 2015 to 2017, before making a return to screens this year. This has led to media interest around the running of the care home, and the suspension of its licence, in the past few months.
While sources at ITV had told this newspaper Pickston was not expected to make any further appearances on the programme, it has since emerged that she has filmed some scenes for the upcoming series. ITV has been approached for comment.
The 42-year-old has previously sold content of an adult nature on OnlyFans, and regularly posts revealing images of herself on social media, where she has also been public in her criticism of Ofsted.
Calling for a public inquiry into whether Ofsted was “fit for purpose”, she compared its conduct to the ongoing Post Office Horizon scandal, which saw thousands of postmasters prosecuted due to a faulty computer program.
“I am standing up for people that have lost their homes, their lifestyles, their businesses… at the hands of Ofsted,” she said in an Instagram post 21 January. “Individuals within [Ofsted] think they have the artist license to write and do whatever they choose to and that it won’t be challenged. This is an abuse of power!!! This has to stop. They [Ofsted] picked on the wrong person as I will fight for the truth and changes need to be made.”
Criticising Ofsted
Last weekend the AP Care Homes Instagram account posted a newspaper cutting which reported comments made by Education Secretary Gillian Keegan that she might “punch” Ofsted inspectors if she were a teacher.
On the same day, Pickston replied to a tweet from Ofsted in which its chief inspector, Sir Martyn Oliver, announced the launch of a major public consultation of its work. Saying she had tried to contact Sir Martyn directly, she wrote: “You cherry pick who you wish to engage with. Extremely poor practice. [Taxpayers] deserve and expect more.”
Pickston, who through Sullivan regularly socialises with Tory Baroness Karen Brady, is also known to dip her toe into the world of politics. On 12 February, Pickston posted a photograph of herself on Instagram alongside Labour leader Keir Starmer, describing him as “a lovely gentleman”, and saying “times are changing”.
Pickston has not made any public comment about the latest development. Her lawyers have been approached for comment and Byline Times will update this article if and when they respond.
There is no suggestion that David Sullivan – whose estimated £1.2 billion fortune was made in the adult industry and who owns a 38.8% majority stake in West Ham – has any involvement in AP Care Homes Ltd, beyond the provision of financing.
Ofsted’s report said the watchdog would “carry out further visits to the home to monitor the restriction notice and the provider’s response to addressing the serious shortfalls identified at this monitoring visit”. It was given until 12 March to do so.
A spokesman for Ofsted declined to add further comment beyond its latest inspection report.
Byline Times has seen adverts posted by AP Care Homes Ltd hiring staff for a separate children’s care home in Oldham, Greater Manchester. An Ofsted source said it had not received any other applications to register a children’s home from AP Care Homes Ltd.
Dan Wootton Finally Axed from GB News as Ofcom Rules Against Channel in Misogyny Row
Dan Wootton has finally been axed from his £600,000-a-year GB News role after the broadcasting regulator upheld a complaint over the misogyny row which saw him suspended from the channel five months ago.
Wootton has been off-air since 27 September last year when he and Laurence Fox made derogatory comments about a female journalist on Dan Wootton Tonight, which resulted in 8,867 complaints to Ofcom – making it 2023’s most complained about broadcast.
In its judgement, which found that GB News was in breach of ‘generally accepted standards’, Ofcom revealed that it had recently been sent new evidence by lawyers for the channel which it had previously been “unable” to provide due to an “‘internal employment process”.
The judgement, released on Monday, said: “On Friday 1 March 2024… solicitors on behalf of the licensee [GB News] sent Ofcom new evidence which it said it had been unable to send previously due to an internal employment process.
“The solicitors said this information supported the licensee’s position that it had asked Mr Wootton to read out an apology and he refused, but it had been unable to give Ofcom this information until this point as ‘it was considered unfair to Mr Wootton… during an employment process’.
“The licensee asked Ofcom to delay publication of the decision so that Ofcom could consider the information.”
Given this detail, the publication of Ofcom’s decision seemingly confirms that Wootton’s internal employment process with GB News is now over.
Wootton has also been removed from the channel’s list of presenters online.
The journalist announced last month that two police investigations into him had been concluded, with no further action being taken.
While GB News did not respond to a request for comment regarding Wootton's employment status, an insider told Byline Times: “He’s definitely gone for good.”
It is not known whether Wootton received a pay-off as part of his departure or whether he retains his share-holding in the channel.
This newspaper revealed in January that Wootton is preparing a return to screens on Rumble – the ‘free speech’ platform hosting former comedian Russell Brand since his YouTube earnings ban following rape allegations that he denies.
Another source said Wootton is considering a move to the US, which will see voters head to the polls in November's Presidential Election. His lawyer, Donal Blaney, has business links to Rebekah Mercer, a billionaire Donald Trump donor.
“As we could well see the re-election as US President of Donald Trump in November, Dan hopes his polemic, hard-right rhetoric will do well in America," the source said. “He also knows his mainstream media career in the UK is over and wants a new start where his past behaviours are less likely to follow him around.”
At the weekend, Wootton posted a photograph of himself on Instagram smiling with both hands in the air outside Trump's Turnberry Hotel in Ayr, which he captioned: “What separates the winners from the losers is how a person reacts to each new twist of fate.”
'Degrading and Demeaning’
Actor-turned-activist Laurence Fox drew condemnation after asking what "self-respecting man" would "climb into bed" with political journalist Ava Evans, during Wootton's live GB News show on 26 September.
Wootton could be seen smiling and laughing throughout Fox's remarks, before adding for "a touch of balance", that Evans had qualified the comments she had made – which the two men were discussing – and called her a "very beautiful woman".
Ofcom launched an investigation into Wootton's show under rule 2.3 of the Broadcasting Code, in which broadcasters must ensure that material which may cause offence is justified by the context.
The regulator found that Fox’s remarks "constituted a highly personal attack on Ms Evans and were potentially highly offensive to viewers".
It also said it has "significant concerns about GB News’ editorial control of its live output" and is requiring the channel to "provide further detailed information about its compliance practices in this area".
"[The comments] reduced her contribution to a broadcast discussion on mental health – in her professional capacity as a political journalist – to a judgement on whether she, or women like her who publicly expressed their political opinions, were sexually desirable to men," Ofcom said in its ruling.
"As such, we considered that Mr Fox's comments were degrading and demeaning both to Ms Evans and women generally and were clearly and unambiguously misogynistic."
It added that Wootton's reaction and limited challenge "did not mitigate the potential for offence" and instead "exacerbated it by contributing to the narrative in which a woman's value was judged by her physical appearance".
It added that "no apology was made after the interview with Mr Fox in the remainder of the two-hour programme – nor were any other editorial techniques used to address the potential for offence".
While Wootton had remained suspended on full pay, Fox was sacked last September.
This is the second time that Ofcom has asked GB News to "attend a meeting at our offices". It first made the request last May after it found the broadcaster had breached broadcasting rules when it aired "unopposed" claims about the Coronavirus vaccine from guest Dr Naomi Wolf.
Evans, PoliticsJOE's Political Correspondent, has said she is "pleased" that Ofcom recognised the remarks made about her were sexist, but that it needs to be able to "impose meaningful sanctions for conduct of this kind, not just slap its perpetrators on the wrist, should they be unwilling to change their behaviour".
Tom Latchem and Dan Evans are former colleagues of Dan Wootton’s from the News of the World between 2007 and 2011. None of the sources in this investigation were paid for their testimony
Two Police Forces to Take No Further Action Against Dan Wootton – As GB News Presenter Reveals Police Scotland as well as The Met Were Investigating
GB News presenter Dan Wootton yesterday revealed for the first time that he was under investigation by Police Scotland as well as the Metropolitan Police.
He announced that probes by both forces had been concluded.
Byline Times sought clarification from Police Scotland about this decision and a spokesperson this afternoon said: “Our enquiries are now complete and no report will be submitted to the Procurator Fiscal at this time. We reserve the right to review this decision in the future and should any new information become available or reported, this will be fully investigated.”
Byline Times has not previously reported on any investigation by Police Scotland.
A Metropolitan Police spokesperson confirmed that it was taking no further action regarding unspecified “allegations of sexual offences committed by a man aged in his 40s”.
They added: “Officers assessed all information available to establish whether any criminal offence has taken place. An investigation was commenced into these allegations. All parties involved have now been advised that no further action will be taken. There were no arrests during the investigation.”
GB News has not commented, but Wootton remains suspended from the channel following a misogyny row last September over an on-air exchange he had with actor-turned-activist Laurence Fox about a female journalist.
It comes amid a continuing internal investigation, involving external lawyers, by Wootton’s former employer News UK – publisher of The Sun – relating to his time working there between 2008 and 2021.
A spokesperson for the company confirmed that London law firm Kingsley Napley was still interviewing former colleagues.
It is not clear whether News UK will make all or any of its findings public, per a letter from The Sun’s Editor-in-Chief Victoria Newton to the House of Commons’ Digital, Media and Sport Committee, which asked her about the Wootton affair last July.
Dan Evans and Tom Latchem are former colleagues of Dan Wootton’s from the News of the World between 2007 and 2011
Children Return to Celebrity-Run Care Home After Row Over Damning Ofsted Report
Children can again reside at a care home owned and run by Ampika Pickston – the reality TV star and glamour model engaged to billionaire West Ham United Chairman David Sullivan – after its registration was suspended following a damning Ofsted inspection report.
AP Care Homes Ltd successfully reversed the suspension on 4 January after further ‘monitoring visits’ by the watchdog showed that safeguarding standards were now being met.
A notice suspending the registration of the home was issued immediately following the Ofsted inspection in November 2023, which found that a sexual assault allegation made by a juvenile resident who had gone missing from the home was not referred to the watchdog, and that there were “significant and serious shortfalls” in the care provided to the child residents at the home in Styal, Cheshire.
Following a tribunal challenging the report’s findings, which took place on 9 January this year, Ofsted temporarily removed the report from its website. It was then republished on 17 January, following an accuracy review, with no significant changes.
Amid widespread reporting of the home’s suspension, Pickston took to social media over the weekend to strongly criticise Ofsted – charged with inspecting schools, colleges, child-minders, nurseries and children’s homes in England – branding its findings “dishonest” and “flawed” and suggesting her being in the “public eye” had led “subconsciously” to a negative bias toward her.
On Monday, Pickston – the owner and sole director of AP Care Homes Ltd – announced that her facility, purchased with money from a company owned by former porn baron Sullivan, was “open and fully operational”, adding that “no harm has come to any children” in its care.
She called for a public inquiry into whether Ofsted was “fit for purpose” and compared its conduct to the ongoing Post Office Horizon scandal, which saw thousands of postmasters prosecuted due to a faulty computer program.
“I am standing up for people that have lost their homes, their lifestyles, their businesses… at the hands of Ofsted,” she wrote on social media.
Pickston also claimed that Ofsted’s “treatment to providers” like her was “driving demand for unregulated placements through the roof”, and “raping” taxpayers who pay an average of £4,500 a week for children in the care system, with some juveniles with complex needs requiring funding of up to £63,000 a week.
Pickston told her 224,000 Instagram followers that “honest people don’t want to work with a governing body who do not help, support or provide the truth” and compared her experience to that of school headteacher Ruth Perry, who took her life in January 2023 following a critical Ofsted inspection.
“I just want to get clear for the record that no child has ever been sexually assaulted whilst residing at AP Care Homes,” she added. “Individuals within [Ofsted] think they have the artist license to write and do whatever they choose to and that it won’t be challenged. This is an abuse of power!!! This has to stop. They [Ofsted] picked on the wrong person as I will fight for the truth and changes need to be made.”
Pickston said she was considering taking legal action, adding that she believes in “truth, transparency and integrity” and Ofsted’s actions “have been far from that”.
A spokesperson for Ofsted did not comment on Pickston’s statement, but confirmed to Byline Times that the children’s home suspension had been “lifted”.
“Any report that is published online [by Ofsted] is factually accurate,” they added.
Pickston went on to suggest that AP Care Homes Ltd has yet to make money since it was incorporated in July 2022. Analysis by this newspaper suggests that, at average rates, the facility could generate a turnover of £936,000 a year at full capacity.
Land Registry and Companies House documents show a financial relationship between AP Care Homes Ltd and Rickleford Ltd – a company belonging to her fiancé David Sullivan. The documents show that AP Care Homes Ltd purchased the “luxury” four-bedroom property in Cheshire, for £1,187,500 on 1 December 2022 and that Rickleford Ltd possesses a charge against the property.
There is no suggestion that David Sullivan – whose estimated £1.2 billion fortune was made in the adult industry and who owns a 38.8% majority stake in West Ham – has any involvement in AP Care Homes Ltd, beyond the provision of financing.
Ampika Pickston came to public prominence appearing in the ITV show The Real Housewives of Cheshire between 2015 to 2017, before making a return to screens this year (although sources at the channel do not expect any further appearances by her). She has previously sold content of an adult nature on OnlyFans, and regularly posts revealing images of herself on social media.
The damning Ofsted inspection found that safeguarding was “poor” and “does not keep children safe” at Pickston’s children’s home – while “an absence of effective leadership and management seriously compromises the welfare and safety of children”.
According to the report, “professional boundaries” were “blurred” when Pickston allegedly took one child back to her own home, leading to an investigation by a boss at the children’s home who has since left the company. Ofsted found that Pickston allegedly invited children to her home again three weeks later. “Although the children did not visit, this action does not demonstrate that high standards of safeguarding practice will always be adhered to,” the report stated.
The Ofsted report also found the facility lacked an appropriate manager – Pickston herself was doing the job but had not “the skills and experience” to operate a home in line with official regulations, it found.
Pickston said: “My home is run by a management team which consists of a responsible individual, a registered manager, and a deputy manager and they’re responsible for overseeing the home on a day to day basis… Over 95% of my staff have got the skill-set, the transferable skills and have been heavily trained to make sure we can safeguard and look after children to the best of our capacity.”
Addressing another allegation, she added: “There’s been no child that has not eaten for days.”
Byline Times received legal threats for investigating the Ofsted report, with Liverpool-based legal firm Brabners, acting for AP Care Homes Ltd, issuing warnings to this newspaper after it was contacted in early January seeking further information.
Ampika Pickston’s lawyers were contacted for comment.
Do you have any information about this story or another?
Contact Byline Times confidentially by emailing: news@bylinetimes.com
Rumbled: Dan Wootton ‘Comeback Planned’ on ‘Free Speech’ Platform Used by Russell Brand
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Suspended GB News presenter Dan Wootton is preparing a return to screens on Rumble – the ‘free speech’ platform hosting former comedian Russell Brand since his YouTube earnings ban following rape allegations.
It comes as Michael Cass – the ‘official moderator’ for the ‘Dan Wootton Tonight Club’ – told its 7,400-strong X (formerly Twitter) followers that GB News had yet to announce its “intentions” around Wootton’s future and hit out at “weak and pathetic management” at the controversial channel.
Wootton is expected to return to the UK this week after a trip to his native New Zealand, from where he posted a video over the Christmas holiday in which he addressed unspecified “rumours”, claimed to have been “silenced” and called for a “media revolution”.
He offered a possible foretaste of any future Rumble content in his piece to camera in which promised to “be back” in 2024, telling followers: “You will be such an important part of that for me.”
He said: “Fishy Rishi [Sunak] is destroying the Conservative Party from the inside out. Slippery [Keir] Starmer is planning a communist takeover of the UK. The corporate media is deriding patriots as far-right yobs, and Sly [Sky] News and the British Bashing Corporation [the BBC] have hit a new low with their coverage of the conflict in Israel.”
Since mid-November GB News has – “until further notice” – filled Wootton’s week-nightly slot with appearances from colleague Patrick Christys. It is not clear whether the former Murdoch executive is continuing to collect his £600,000 annual salary, having been suspended over an on-air misogynistic rant by actor-turned-activist Laurence Fox, during which Wootton smirked as Fox made disparaging sexual remarks about political journalist Ava Evans.
That followed months of speculation about Wootton’s future on GB News after a three-year deep investigation by this newspaper into his personal and professional conduct, in which he was exposed as a serial catfish targeting friends and colleagues with attempts to obtain sexual imagery by deception.
#MediaToo investigation AND CROWDFUNDER
-
‘Morals More Akin to the Mafia’: Former Minister on Illegality at the Murdoch Empire17 January 2024
-
EXCLUSIVERumbled: Dan Wootton ‘Comeback Planned’ on ‘Free Speech’ Platform Used by Russell Brand17 January 2024
-
EXCLUSIVEWitnesses Interviewed as Police and Murdoch Probes Into Dan Wootton Continue14 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVERevealed: The Emails Behind the Royal ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Affair9 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVEIn Plain Sight: The Picture the Palace Probe Missed9 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVEThe Truth About Megxit: How Dan Wootton and a ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Scandal Split the Royal Family9 December 2023
This is the start of a wider report into the toxic culture of the national media. We want to keep telling the story. Contributions to our #MediaToo crowdfunder will go directly to funding our journalism.
Contribute to our #MediaToo crowdfunder
It also comes alongside an ongoing investigation by the Metropolitan Police into various Byline Times’ revelations, including that one alleged victim of the online pseudonym 'Martin Branning’ was blackmailed over a 10-year period.
Now three sources with knowledge of Wootton’s vision for his future are saying he is looking to life beyond GB News – with Rumble his likely choice of destination following YouTube’s move to demonetise some controversial voices, including that of Russell Brand since rape allegations emerged about the former comedian were in October.
One source said: “Dan has had to acknowledge that his broadcasting career is in limbo and that he may need to go his own way. Rumble is the preferred platform, as it would allow him to make money from adverts and crowdfunding.”
In one of his final GB News broadcasts, Wootton led coverage of the Brand allegations – themselves subject of a separate police probe – and attacked so-called “cancel culture” and “trial by media”.
On 19 September, Wootton hosted three segments addressing Brand, and strongly criticised the demonetisation of Brand’s YouTube channel, running a poll in which Wootton asked viewers to vote on whether it was “wrong” for the platform to cut off Brand’s income stream, with 76% of respondents apparently agreeing.
This newspaper further understands that Wootton is considering teaming up with conservative commentator Calvin Robinson, who himself left GB News in support of Wootton following his suspension.
“Dan and Calvin may go into partnership together," another sourced told Byline Times. "They both hope to have a base within a certain section of the GB News audience.”
Wootton, once prolific on social media, has been quieter since his suspension, but has kept his X account ticking over with retweets about ‘wokery’ and in support of hard-right Conservative Party figures and ideas.
The journalist has however been posting on social media from various international locations including France and New Zealand. Byline Times has also learned that Wootton travelled to the Grand Cayman, the famous offshore financial centre, in early December.
Dan Wootton was approached for comment.
Tom Latchem and Dan Evans are former colleagues of Dan Wootton’s from the News of the World. None of the sources in this investigation were paid
Exposed: How Paparazzi Spied on Phillip Schofield’s Sick Mother
#MediaToo investigation: the new dark arts
-
EXCLUSIVEExposed: How Paparazzi Spied on Phillip Schofield’s Sick Mother9 January 2024
Six years on from Matt Hancock’s cancellation of Part II of the Leveson Inquiry into Press misbehaviour, and after Prince Harry’s landmark legal win revealed the extent of historic phone hacking and illegal private investigations in Mirror Group Newspapers under Piers Morgan’s editorship, Byline Times is looking at modern Fleet Street practices and asking: Whatever happened to the Last Chance Saloon?
Contribute to our #MediaToo crowdfunder
It’s like a relic of the Cold War – a remote surveillance camera artfully disguised among flowerbed greenery to spy on the unwitting.
Yet, this hidden eye isn’t from the 1950s and wasn’t deployed by some apparatus of the state. It was secreted by Britain’s most notorious paparazzo on private property to observe the movements of an ailing 87-year-old grandmother and her son.
Its purpose had nothing to do with the public interest. It was there solely to try and make easy unethical cash from the tabloid media.
In the first part of a new investigation, Byline Times is publishing exclusive images and video of the extraordinary surveillance tactics of photographer George Bamby, a stalwart of the tabloid game for more than 20 years.
They show 52-year-old Mr Bamby, of Paignton, Devon, larger than life wielding a telephoto lens, within the gated grounds of the home of Pat Schofield – mother of the troubled television star Phillip.
They also show the moment the former presenter discovers a remote camera belonging to Bamby, encased in a white plastic egg, camouflaged with tufts of grass, hidden among shrubs.
Its purpose, according to two sources, was to secretly monitor Pat Schofield’s movements to and from the hospital with her famous son – and allow Bamby to snatch long lens images to sell to the media.
The incident happened on 30 June 2023, while Mrs Schofield was receiving medical attention during a period of family crisis.
Her son was caring for her while himself at the centre of a media storm, having resigned from ITV's This Morning over an affair a month earlier following a 35-year presenting career. Pat’s other son, Timothy, was also beginning a 12-year sentence for child sex crimes after a highly publicised criminal trial.
Hidden Camera
A source with knowledge of the matter said: “It was a really difficult moment for the family. Pat was understandably distraught. It’s not as if pictures of Philip are hard to find, so there was no public interest. There was no good reason to even turn up at Pat’s home, less still to spy.
“Pat was so alarmed by the paparazzi presence that she didn’t want to leave the house, which made getting her to hospital or clinics very difficult. It had a huge impact.”
Another source said: “Philip was very upset when he found the secret camera. He confronted Bamby and took pictures of his own with his phone for evidence. Then Bamby lifted his camera and fired off a load more shots of Philip. It would have intimidated anyone. Philip wanted to take the matter to the police.”
The source added: “Bamby was being a major nuisance to Pat… In the end he went and put the camera in the bush on the private property of Pat’s own development. He wanted pictures of Philip of course, but that meant watching Pat too. She was collateral damage.”
A legal source said that the secret filming was a breach of not only professional standards – all media regulatory codes in the UK forbid the use of subterfuge under such circumstances – but also potentially criminal and civil laws.
Under the Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO) Editors’ Code of Practice the use of hidden cameras is forbidden unless with a clear public interest defence, as are unjustified intrusions into private and family life – an area also protected under the Human Rights Act 1998 – while intrusions into shock and grief must be made with “sympathy and discretion”.
A spokesperson for IPSO said it had already issued a “privacy notice” after a complaint.
The legal source said: “This is an intrusion into Mrs Schofield’s shock and grief at a time when she needed medical assistance. Whatever was going on in Philip Schofield’s life, there was no requirement for his photograph to be taken under these circumstances. It wasn’t needed in order to identify him – there are thousands of images of him in existence already.
“The photographer’s use of clandestine equipment on private property and then persistent taking of pictures could be characterised as harassment, trespass, and a clear breach of privacy. From a legal and ethical point of view, it is horrendous – completely indefensible behaviour.”
'Number One Paparazzi'
Freelance Bamby revels in being the UK's self-styled “number one paparazzi”, although – according to X (formerly Twitter) in October – he claims to have recanted on the career with an apology to former target Coleen Rooney in which he called himself a “horrible person”.
In an earlier autobiography, and a 2017 Channel 4 documentary Confessions of the Paparazzi, he spoke freely of the methods that made him familiar to national picture editors and gave him a reputation that some colleagues feel is a stain on their industry.
One colleague told Byline Times: “George has always pushed the boundaries of what’s right and ethical. Even among a group of characters as tough as paps, he stood out. His way of doing things has made it harder for all of us.”
The documentary revealed that Bamby once sent a fake fan with a backstory about a sick grandmother to give TV presenter Judy Finnigan a bottle of wine as a gift, while he looked on through the viewfinder of his Canon.
Bamby later cropped the ‘fan’ out of the final images, and his shots of Ms Finnigan holding the bottle later appeared in national media alongside a misleading story about her lifestyle. He also admitted to photographing Finnigan in a beer garden while she was blinking to make her look asleep.
As Bamby told Channel 4: “I don’t just take pictures, I make stories. They might not always be true.”
He also told how he once photographed actor Aidan Turner smoking an e-cigarette on the set of Poldark and invented a story about his smoking habit bringing filming to a halt. "Next day, full page in the Mail," he said. "I get two grand. They get the publicity. Readers get to read another load of shite. Happy days, innit?"
In a 2017 interview in The Times, Bamby spoke of targeting daytime television presenters in order to sell pictures to women’s magazines. He said: “People like Phillip [Schofield], Holly [Willoughby], all the Loose Women, Fern Britton, Richard and Judy. It’s easy money. If I can get [them] on the front of Best or Bella? That’s two or three grand.”
Last year, novelist and TV host Britton shared an Instagram reel about an upsetting experience she had with Bamby. “I've just had one of those distressing moments out of the blue,” she told her followers. “There's a pap, his name is George Bamby. “He’s a menace, and he’ll be proud to hear me say that. He’s an absolute menace.”
Britton claimed Bamby secretly snatched long-lens pictures through holes in the side of a vehicle. Referring to Bamby and a “spotter” colleague, Britton added: “I just saw them, up in my little village. I knew it was him, I haven’t seen him for years... He wrote me a letter a little while ago saying ‘I’m so sorry for everything I did to you, I feel so ashamed, I’ve found religion, I feel awful’. Hmm!”
‘Starmer’s Refusal to Confront the Press Isn’t Just a Mistake – It’s Irresponsible’
If the Labour Leader does not embrace media reform now, he never will – and the entire country will be far worse off as a result, writes Brian Cathcart
Brian Cathcart
Retirement?
Bamby’s 2017 self-incrimination led many national newspapers to place a moratorium on his material. But Byline Times has learned that he continued to sell to some outlets through a national picture agency, which this newspaper is not naming for legal reasons.
Last year, Bamby confessed to falsely claiming to be the son of Britain’s most notorious prisoner Charles Bronson for six years as part of a lucrative public relations stunt that generated “loads of money”.
Speaking after Bronson made a failed parole bid, Bamby told TalkTV: “Me and Charlie together made up the story that he was my dad. Charles Bronson is not my father. I am a PR agent. I’m a marketing person, and I’m the UK’s number one paparazzi. I’ve not told anybody this for six years and it’s been an absolute bane of my life.”
He added that he “didn’t even tell my wife, I didn’t even tell my family” and that "my wife is sat here now and she looks horrified”.
Bamby said the profits were split between him and Bronson’s consultant because people serving jail time are not legally allowed to profit from their wrongdoing. He said: “Me and Charlie… have made loads of money.
“We’ve had loads of fun, we’ve created loads of stories, we’ve done loads of ridiculous things, we’ve manipulated the media, we’ve manipulated the prison service. I got into the maximum security in four different prisons as a journalist.”
Bamby now claims to be foregoing his photographic career.
After watching Colleen Rooney’s documentary Coleen Rooney: The Real Wagatha Story, he wrote last month: “I was the pap that used to photograph [Coleen and Wayne Rooney]. Can't believe what I used to do for a living. Totally ashamed. I am so sorry Wayne and Coleen for being such a horrible person!”
Bamby has since announced his retirement from the industry and has put his camera equipment on sale for £7,500.
A newspaper photographer source told Byline Times: “Bamby has been part of the reason why we get so much abuse as an industry. If he has actually retired from the business, we will believe it when we see it.”
Byline Times contacted George Bamby ahead of publication. He declined to comment on the confrontation with Philip Schofield and said he had not been contacted by police.
coming up next: catch and tell
Four Major Public Interest Scandals the Tabloids Covered Up
Witnesses Interviewed as Police and Murdoch Probes Into Dan Wootton Continue
Newsletter offer
Subscribe to our newsletter for exclusive editorial emails from the Byline Times Team.
Dan Wootton remains at the centre of several separate inquiries following a special investigation into catfishing and abuse of power allegations published by this newspaper this summer.
On 2 October, the Metropolitan Police confirmed it was looking into matters connected to a 40-year-old man arising from a series of Byline Times articles unmasking Wootton as the controller of catfishing pseudonyms ‘Martin Branning’ and ‘Maria Joseph’.
It can now be confirmed that officers of the Met’s Complex Investigation Team have interviewed a number of people over matters raised by the articles and in connection with other allegations that cannot be reported for legal reasons.
There have been no arrests, although a witness against whom Wootton made counter-allegations was told last month that they will face no further police action. Wootton has denied any implications of criminal activity.
Officers have meanwhile been taking statements from a number of men in England and Scotland.
“There is top-level interest in the case within the police," one source said. "They are taking a belt-and-braces approach and will follow the evidence. There is a desire for people with information to come forward and get in touch via their local police station.”
News UK, publisher of The Sun – at which Wootton worked for eight years until 2021 and which has appointed external lawyers to look into the alleged targeting of employees and some celebrities – has yet to offer its findings to detectives, as it did in 2011 when it cooperated with a Scotland Yard inquiry into phone-hacking and bribery scandals.
However, sources close to the company speak of an investigation that continues to warrant further attention and remains a matter of corporate concern.
#MediaToo investigation AND CROWDFUNDER
-
EXCLUSIVEWitnesses Interviewed as Police and Murdoch Probes Into Dan Wootton Continue14 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVERevealed: The Emails Behind the Royal ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Affair9 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVEIn Plain Sight: The Picture the Palace Probe Missed9 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVEThe Truth About Megxit: How Dan Wootton and a ‘Cash-For-Leaks’ Scandal Split the Royal Family9 December 2023
-
EXCLUSIVEExploding ‘Megxit’: How Dan Wootton and a Cash-for-Leaks Scandal Split the Monarchy25 October 2023
-
‘Disappearing Dan Wootton Articles Show a Serious Need for S40 Alternative’11 October 2023
This is the start of a wider report into the toxic culture of the national media. We want to keep telling the story. Contributions to our #MediaToo crowdfunder will go directly to funding our journalism.
Contribute to our #MediaToo crowdfunder
The Murdochs’ chosen external counsel, London law firm Kingsley Napley, has in the past acted for the family itself. Its former partner Angus McBride was appointed News UK’s general counsel in 2016 after acting for CEO Rebekah Brooks in her 2014 Old Bailey acquittal on phone-hacking charges.
A company source said: “News UK is taking this very seriously. The fear is of a big Lizzo-style pile-on of litigants [US entertainer Lizzo is facing a string of sexual harassment and hostility-at-work court cases] bringing possible law suits that try and make the firm liable for the alleged activities of an employee.
“The very specific nature of the information Byline Times published about Dan Wootton has led to questions which keep leading to more questions. Even in comparison to the phone-hacking business of the last decade or so, this is causing surprises in-house.”
Byline Times has learned that News UK has spoken to colleagues of Wootton’s who say they were solicited online for digital material of a sexual nature by the catfishing pseudonyms ‘Martin Branning’ and ‘Maria Joseph’.
The company is now also believed to be in possession of digital evidence connecting Wootton to those names, while some separate workplace bullying and sexual harassment allegations are also under examination.
It is not clear whether News UK will make all or any of its findings public, per a letter from The Sun’s Editor-in-Chief Victoria Newton to the House of Commons’ Digital, Media and Sport Committee, which asked about the Wootton affair in July.
ENJOYING THIS ARTICLE? HELP US TO PRODUCE MORE
Receive the monthly Byline Times newspaper and help to support fearless, independent journalism that breaks stories, shapes the agenda and holds power to account.
We’re not funded by a billionaire oligarch or an offshore hedge-fund. We rely on our readers to fund our journalism. If you like what we do, please subscribe.
“The company will want to make a public show of legal and regulatory compliance issues being dealt with robustly,” said a source. “However, no firm decision has been made on whether to share findings. We need to get to the bottom of it all properly first. No one has ever seen anything quite like it.”
Wootton remains suspended by GB News as its star presenter earning £600,000 a year plus share incentives, following a September misogyny storm which saw actor-turned-activist Laurence Fox and Calvin Robinson axed from the right-leaning news channel.
Sources within GB News suggest that Wootton, whose week-nightly primetime slot has since been filled by another presenter, is not expected to be making any imminent return to air amid continuing speculation about his permanent broadcasting future there.
“The bosses at GB News are trying to be as fair and rigorous as they can be," one source told Byline Times. "They do not want to end up with a messy legal battle with one of their star people over employment rights.”
Meanwhile, in September, Wootton placed his five-bedroom south-east London home on the market for £1.8 million, and has suggested to friends he might relocate to Scotland with his partner. Neither he nor his legal representatives responded to Byline Times request for comment.
GB News and the Met Police did not respond to requests for comment.
Dan Evans was a former News of the World colleague of Dan Wootton’s between 2007 and 2011. None of the sources cited in this story were paid
Do you have any information for our #MediaToo investigation?
Get in touch confidentially by emailing: news@bylinetimes.com