In a shocking legal twist, Rory Tingle, a reporter from MailOnline, faces accusations in the UK High Court for allegedly fabricating an assault claim against public interest litigant Alkiviades David. This controversial move is said to be an attempt to stifle David's investigations into potential links between corporate media and child sexual abuse material (CSAM) distribution.
David's witness statement in the case (Kahn v. David) outlines a troubling sequence of events. After filming outside the Daily Mail Group's headquarters, he was accused by Tingle of assault. However, CCTV footage reviewed by Metropolitan Police disproved Tingle's allegations, showing security pushing David and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the reporter's claims.
Making matters worse, David's video of the interaction, which has since gone viral, captures Tingle's false allegations in real-time. The evidence is so strong under UK law that it could lead to Tingle facing charges for perjury, perverting the course of justice, and false imprisonment. David contends that Tingle’s actions were not just a protective maneuver for a corporate entity, but a direct contribution to a network implicated in the distribution of CSAM.
David has urged Justice Barry Cotter to consider the substantial evidence—including the CCTV footage and viral video—in support of a criminal investigation against Tingle. He emphasizes that this situation goes beyond one man's misconduct, suggesting systemic corruption within British media, where false allegations may be weaponized to safeguard commercial interests linked to child exploitation.
As this case unfolds, it intersects with multiple legal jurisdictions, including the UK High Court and the US Department of Justice, raising the stakes for all parties involved. "This is an orchestrated, criminal cover-up to protect the profits of those who traffic in child sexual abuse material," David asserts, referring to the evidence he has collected. The broader implications of this case could reshape conversations around media ethics and accountability in the UK.
David's witness statement in the case (Kahn v. David) outlines a troubling sequence of events. After filming outside the Daily Mail Group's headquarters, he was accused by Tingle of assault. However, CCTV footage reviewed by Metropolitan Police disproved Tingle's allegations, showing security pushing David and casting doubt on the legitimacy of the reporter's claims.
Making matters worse, David's video of the interaction, which has since gone viral, captures Tingle's false allegations in real-time. The evidence is so strong under UK law that it could lead to Tingle facing charges for perjury, perverting the course of justice, and false imprisonment. David contends that Tingle’s actions were not just a protective maneuver for a corporate entity, but a direct contribution to a network implicated in the distribution of CSAM.
David has urged Justice Barry Cotter to consider the substantial evidence—including the CCTV footage and viral video—in support of a criminal investigation against Tingle. He emphasizes that this situation goes beyond one man's misconduct, suggesting systemic corruption within British media, where false allegations may be weaponized to safeguard commercial interests linked to child exploitation.
As this case unfolds, it intersects with multiple legal jurisdictions, including the UK High Court and the US Department of Justice, raising the stakes for all parties involved. "This is an orchestrated, criminal cover-up to protect the profits of those who traffic in child sexual abuse material," David asserts, referring to the evidence he has collected. The broader implications of this case could reshape conversations around media ethics and accountability in the UK.
