Accused of multiple counts of raping women & children, David Sullivan has so far been protected by the UK court system, UK Police, the BBC, & the FA. Now it’s time for Johnny Vedmore to investigate.
With significant parallels to the Epstein case, the former King of Porn is about to be dethroned and, if the letter of the law is followed, the part-owner of West Ham United could become known as one of the most prolific sex offenders in UK history. While the case against Sullivan has been treated as complex, the evidence against him is striking and calls for immediate action to safeguard children.
There are many recorded instances of wealthy men abusing their positions of influence to coerce women and girls into sexual relationships. Some of these men are opportunists who take advantage of women whenever an opportunity arises. However, like with Jeffrey Epstein, some sex offenders systematise the creation of such opportunities. Epstein had Ghislaine Maxwell organise his industrial grooming operations. She arranged for an army of young women to groom underage girls from high schools, swimming pools and shopping malls. This fuelled Jeffrey Epstein’s routine of two to three “sexual massages” a day with underage girls. If you were to estimate the number of sexual assaults which Jeffrey Epstein committed over ten years, it would equate to about 8000 separate offences. That level of systematised sexual abuse may have appeared rare in the past; however, with the revelations in the cases against Epstein, Savile and P Diddy, we have all lost a little of our naivety and innocence.
David Sullivan, one of the current owners of West Ham football club in the United Kingdom. He was formerly known as the Porn King of the United Kingdom, and he is about to come under intense public scrutiny. For years, campaigners have tirelessly pushed for the United Kingdom’s legal authorities to investigate David Sullivan. However, the police, courts and mainstream press in Britain have so far proved themselves to be incompetent when it comes to holding the rich and powerful to account.
This article profiles David Sullivan, a man with a significant history of manipulation, whose past is catching up with him. We will examine his alleged modus operandi, the laws which may apply to this case, and some of the factors which have helped sustain and protect David Sullivan from scrutiny.
This is a precarious article to write as a journalist. From the outset, I must clearly say: As I write this, David Sullivan has not been tried in court for any of the allegations I am referring to. As far as we know right now, David Sullivan is officially not a rapist. It will require evidence, testimony, a jury and a judge to decide his guilt. That being said. On a personal level, I am looking forward to a trial, and the evidence points in one direction. As always, you have to form your own opinion.
The Gigolo’s Lure
We are starting this profile in the early 1970s. The sexual revolution of the prior decade had opened many previously restricted doors to peddlers of pornography. Society was changing in the United Kingdom; homosexual sex was no longer a criminal offence, and the sex industry began to boom as a more prudish generation relinquished its grip on culture. Like with any fundamental cultural change, the sexual revolution had winners and losers. Some forms of sexual exploitation went from strictly existing underground to becoming normalised within the blink of an eye. There was one young man who was looking to capitalise.
David Sullivan was a podgy, pig-faced porn pioneer looking to make a big impact. A 1972 News of the World article dubbed him and his business partner “Britain’s newest purveyors of filth,” while, in March 1973, The Guardian newspaper revealed that David Sullivan and Bernard Hardingham had been surreptitiously marketing their wares to the readers of Private Eye. The duo of pornographers were offering their secret to making £10,000 to £15,000 a year just by following simple instructions, all for the price of £1. Those who sent off a quid received back a paperback book entitled “We made £200,000”. The Guardian notes:
“The cover features a lady with rather tired breasts and the irresistible come-on: “An interview with Lord Longford.” (Asked for his reaction the peer said: “Disdain would be the moderately Christian thing to feel.”) What it doesn’t reveal is who actually made £200,000.”
The names of Sullivan and Hardingham had been removed from the paperback book; instead, replaced by their initials, D.S. and B.H. The Guardian journalists easily linked the seventies smut salesmen by their business name, Subdean Publishing, a company of which the two men were the registered directors.
In fact, the aforementioned Private Eye article wasn’t the only advert David Sullivan had placed in a publication. On 1 March 1973, Sullivan advertised for a “SUPER GIRL!” in the Evening Standard newspaper. The advert reads:
“Under 35, willing to travel, no ties, ambitious, dynamic, highly competent, intelligent, attractive and a proven record of success. If you really believe you can meet those requirements and would like to work as the P.A. to two young millionaires, have your own flat—free, a car and a fantastic salary—this is a genuine P.A. position—then apply in writing only, with full personal details to David Sullivan, Dean Marketing, 130 Godwin Rd., Forest Gate, London, E.7.”
For many years, David Sullivan has been accused of a particular method of sexual coercion and rape. Sullivan has already faced a litany of complaints from alleged victims, which the British police have so far refused to act on. Each of the cases investigated so far has been labelled “NFA” by British police, meaning “No Further Action”, and this habitual inaction by the authorities is rumoured to have gone on for almost 40 years. From speaking to people deeply involved in the case and examining all the allegations, the earliest accusation of rape made to the police against David Sullivan appears to be in the late 1980s.
It should be no surprise to anyone with knowledge of the Savile case, the Rotherham grooming gangs scandal, the failures at Kendall House care home, or the allegations against former UK Prime Minister Ted Heath to discover that the British police have failed to act in the face of serious abuse allegations. The various allegations made against David Sullivan form a very specific M.O. and a pattern which is significant enough to warrant an investigation equivalent to that of Operation Yewtree.
Several women say that David Sullivan attracted their attention with an advert for a job as a PA, often not mentioning the porn industry. They claimed that during the interview process, Sullivan demanded sex acts and often full penetration. More than one of the alleged victims also claims that David Sullivan made it clear that if they wanted the job, they’d have to have sex with him whenever he required. David Sullivan will no doubt dispute these claims. Even though David Sullivan’s use of job interviews to coerce and groom women into sex has been widely reported for decades, no defamation claim has ever been made by Sullivan.
A reporter named Tina Dalgleish, reporting for the News of the World in a 1981 article entitled, Come to Bed if You’re Seeking a Job, stated:
“Using an assumed name he lures them to his luxury home through adverts in his own sex magazines promising up to £150 a night for “promotional entertainment work.” When they get there they find 32-year-old Mr Sullivan expects a free sample of their ability to entertain men clients. We investigated his activities after a complaint from a girl who applied to him for work. She told us she failed to get a job after refusing to go to bed with him. I answered an advertisement which gave the name “Don Bell, sales director” and the address of Mr Sullivan’s office in Upton Lane, Forest Gate, London. I was asked to see him at his private address—which turned out to be Mr Sullivan’s £250,000 mansion in Stradbroke Drive, Chigwell, Essex. When I met “Mr Bell” I recognised him from photographs as David Sullivan, the man who launched the late Mary Millington as a blue movie star.”
However, the Dalgleish article also gives unexpected insight into how these operations work. Like with Epstein’s operation, sex with the boss was a precursor to being prostituted to the boss’s business partners and associates. The article goes on to quote what David Sullivan allegedly said during the interview process:
“I asked Mr Sullivan—whose porn empire is worth £10 million—to make it clear what the advertisement was offering. He said: “Without messing about, we have clients who come over who we want taken care of and looked after. They’re nice guys. We’re not looking for a hardened professional, but we are looking for a competent girl who would be doing it partly as a hobby and partly for the money. We’re prepared to pay a very good rate for looking after our clients. We are not out to persuade you to do anything you don’t want to do. But do you want to get up to no good or not? I mean, my time is valuable.”
The routine was simple: women turned up to an interview with Don Bell only to discover it was David Sullivan. He then directed the interviewee to his bedroom, where he’d tell them to undress and perform sex acts.
“Within 15 minutes of the interview starting, he asked: “So are you coming upstairs with me for ten minutes to see what you can do? I made an excuse, but he was undeterred. He wanted me to go to his bedroom so he could “see what my figure was like.” In his black carpeted bedroom, with the walls lined in black suede, Mr Sullivan asked me to strip to my underwear. Once examined, I was asked to dress. He told me: “The ball’s in your court. Call me next week if you want to pop back, pop back.”
Another lady brought her husband along to the interview, yet within two minutes of their arrival at the property, David Sullivan asked the lady’s husband if he could take his wife up to his bedroom:
“In the bedroom he asked me to undress so he could have a look at me. I made an excuse and was allowed to keep my briefs on. When I refused to have sex with him, he said, ‘If you aren’t going to do anything, it’s like a boxer without any training. I don’t know what you can do.’ He seemed upset and couldn’t wait to get rid of me.”
The lady’s husband said, “The whole thing, to my mind, was a charade,” and he was correct.
Even though both of these ladies were able to assert their authority, many would have felt obligated. This routine is a facet of a systematic grooming operation. Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein used the same routine. Young girls were invited to become massage therapists for a wealthy businessman. Victim testimony shows that the girls were escorted by the likes of Ghislaine Maxwell, Sarah Kellen and Virginia Giuffre to a massage table where Epstein was often naked or about to become nude. Some of the girls asserted their authority confidently, like Hayley Robson, who became part of Epstein’s operation. However, other victims were not so confident. The grooming process allows sexual offenders to lure, groom and abuse the most vulnerable, while dismissing those who could confidently assert their authority.
It is alleged that David Sullivan repeated this routine methodically for decades. Many of those making the accusations claim that working for Sullivan came with one strict understanding: if David Sullivan or his colleagues wanted sex at any time during their employment, they had to consent. However, under the law, “consent” is not that straightforward.
The Criminal Profile of David Sullivan
If the allegations against David Sullivan are correct, he has committed multiple serious criminal offences under UK law. Several women and girls claim that he lured them with advertisements for employment as a legitimate personal assistant, while deceiving them about his identity, coercing them into sexual acts during the interview as a condition of employment, and then exploiting them by arranging sexual services for him and his business associates. Legally speaking, criminal acts such as these primarily fall under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (SOA 2003) and the Fraud Act 2006. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and any proceeding would have to prove a lack of consent, intent, and that the specific circumstances were true.
Under the SOA 2003, consent is invalid if induced by deception about the act’s “nature or purpose”. It can be argued that the deception about the job/interview creates a false belief that sexual acts are a legitimate test or requirement. This removes genuine consent. The alleged victims report being directed to a bedroom for examination or sex, with penetration included in some accounts. If the woman decides to submit due to pressure—for instance, they are desperately seeking immediate employment—then they are not freely consenting, and this constitutes rape. It should also be noted that if the prosecution proves that sexual consent was removed by David Sullivan’s use of deception, he may become one of the most prolific offenders in British legal history.
If true, David Sullivan allegedly demanding that the women undress so he could examine their figure, or requesting them to perform sex acts in the bedroom as a sample for a potential job opportunity, could constitute sexual assault. Again, consent must be clearly obtained, so non-penetrative sexualised acts agreed to under deception are also considered non-consensual. The deception Sullivan allegedly used to gain consent snowballs. Under the SOA 2003, intentionally causing someone to engage in sexual activity comes with a potential 10-year prison term. If it’s proven that Sullivan obtained consent through deception, then he will be susceptible to prosecutions for multiple accounts of rape, assault by penetration, sexual assault, and causing sexual activity without consent. However, they aren’t the only crimes for which Sullivan could be tried if the CPS decide there is enough evidence to progress to court.
Allegedly arranging for women to “entertain” his business clients shows intent to profit from their sexual services. Sullivan could face up to 7 years imprisonment for multiple counts of controlling prostitution for gain if found guilty. For originally soliciting such services, a separate criminal charge of causing/inciting prostitution for gain could be applied. Also, fraud by false representation covers the initial method of deception, which Sullivan allegedly used when he lured the women with a non sexual job interview.
As mentioned briefly, the proposal of job interviews to lure potential victims is a regular theme in industrial grooming operations. Of course, the Epstein operation has well-documented examples of such criminal behaviour, with girls offered roles as masseuses while also initially obscuring the sexual aspects of their roles. Jean Luc Brunel also ran modelling agencies where some of those girls who were trafficked were attracted by adverts for modelling work. In Canada and the US, the case involving Peter Nygard also involved this dynamic, with adverts for “brand ambassador” roles promising travel, high pay, and career advancement, often targeting aspiring models via industry events or online posts. Victims were then flown to his luxury compounds, where “interviews” devolved into coerced sexual acts with Nygard as a “test.” In fact, David Sullivan also ran modelling competitions, including events specifically targeting girls around the age of 16 years old. Sullivan ran modelling competitions through his porn magazines from very early on in his career. From the late 1980s, The Sunday Sport newspaper also ran The Miss Sunday Sport Competition, which was often hosted at Stringfellows in London.
In the United Kingdom, the Rotherham grooming gangs systematically exploited over 1400 children for sex. Some of the victims were lured into exploitation by the offer of jobs like market trading and hairdressing apprenticeships. In that case, girls as young as 11 were lured with cash, gifts, or promises of employment, then isolated in interviews or car rides that escalated to rape and trafficking. Jimmy Savile offered young girls work experience at the BBC and tours of the BBC studio. The promise of mentorship was a powerful tool for those who aspired to work in media. The same was so in the United States with Harvey Weinstein, who offered job opportunities and gave auditions which escalated to sexual assault.
All industrial grooming operations begin with a simple lure. It is one of the many similarities that Sullivan’s alleged technique has with Epstein’s operation. However, there is another, perhaps more significant connection between the two cases.
The Maxwell Family
David Sullivan was the United Kingdom’s number one porn pioneer. He started as a publisher of sexy paperbacks, illicit porn magazines, and so-called blue movies. During my investigation, I came across a lot of speculation and various rumours. Some of what I was told, I cannot prove, and I cannot repeat. However, one rumour piqued my interest. One source I spoke to told me of supposed David Sullivan sex parties during the mid-1980s. This isn’t a surprise; you can expect the king of porn to throw sex parties during the peak of his enterprise. However, these sex parties were supposedly arranged and hosted by a young Ghislaine Maxwell, only a few years before she met Jeffrey Epstein.
As one of the key Epstein researchers worldwide, I couldn’t resist analysing and scrutinising this claim in particular. I cannot substantiate the claim directly at the moment; however, I did find other information linking Robert Maxwell with David Sullivan, and that investigation led me to speak with key witnesses of Robert Maxwell’s Mossad spy games. That aspect will be part of a coming NEWSPASTE investigation.
Even though little information is publicly available that links Robert Maxwell and David Sullivan, they were both London-based newspaper publishers during the same period. In fact, there were rumours of their association in an August 1984 article, which appeared in The Observer, journalist Peter Hillmore writes:
“Mr Maxwell is planning to apply to London Transport to have the bus-stop moved farther down the road, so that his Rolls-Royce can park outside. Now that he finally has the stewardship of a newspaper company, anything that Mr Maxwell’s myriad of companies do is of public interest. So I’m very surprised to learn that his paperback company, Futura, has been in negotiations with a soft porn publisher, David Sullivan, to produce what the company calls ‘a series of erotic books.’ The editorial director, Tony Roxburgh, tells me the project fell through because ‘our lawyers were a bit leery (his words not mine) of the project’.”
After regaining control of Pergamon Press in 1974, Robert Maxwell went on an aggressive expansion campaign. He acquired the British Printing Corporation (BPC) in 1981, changing the organisation’s name to the BPCC and later the MCC in 1987. This entity encompassed various publishing houses, including Futura. The Futura organisation itself was focused on distributing low-cost books to compete in the UK market, something which David Sullivan was very interested in. By the time of the failed 1984 Futura talks, Maxwell had gained control over the Mirror Group newspapers. Sullivan first debuted the Sunday Sport newspaper in 1986, with its full launch in 1987.
There are also other similarities between Robert Maxwell and David Sullivan’s operations during this period. The ownership of a national publication gave Maxwell and Sullivan more than control over propaganda; there was also a dynamic of compromise. Both Robert Maxwell and Ghislaine Maxwell used sexual compromise to ensure that the powerful friends they colluded with continued to toe the line. Tabloid newspapers in the United Kingdom regularly choose whether or not to run a compromising article that those in power want quickly quashed. Stories which compromise those in power, or which could be used as leverage, have been the bread and butter of the more salacious red top tabloids.
One outrageous example of David Sullivan threatening to negatively harm someone if they refused to do what he wanted was directed at one of the United Kingdom’s most beloved icons, Cilla Black. In early October 1999, the Sunday People was one of many national newspapers to react to David Sullivan’s gangster tactics. In an article entitled “Porn King Threat to Cilla”, Sharon Marshall wrote:
“The porn king, co-owner of First Division soccer club Birmingham City, issued the cruel threat because Cilla had refused to give an interview to one of his seedy newspapers. Slimy Sullivan, 50, got hold of her ex-directory number and warned that unless she co-operated “we will resort to things which are not very nice for you”. Now Cilla, struggling to cope with the nightmare of her husband’s illness, has warned she will go straight to the police if she gets another threat from the millionaire pedlar of filth.”
Cilla Black’s husband, Bobby Willis, had just received a shock cancer diagnosis and was deep into chemotherapy treatment at the time, tragically dying three weeks later. If Sullivan was willing to threaten the queen of UK entertainment during her darkest days, it suggests that he is a man willing to threaten anyone to get what he wants.
Although the Sunday Sport was selling more than 200,000 copies a week by the end of 1986, the top dog on Fleet Street Sunday publications was Murdoch’s News of the World with a circulation of 4.9 million copies per week. However, in comparison, the Sunday Sport was a relatively small operation, with only 11 journalists at the paper. The newspaper wasn’t only about selling sex; it also intended to fight for the male perspective, or at least Sullivan’s twisted version of a male perspective. As noted by The Guardian newspaper’s 8 December 1986 edition, which states:
“Men get a raw deal. Or so says Sunday Sport about rape cases. And it is playing the young male audience with its mix of sex-stories, nipples and sport.”
Sullivan promised to “out Sun The Sun” with the launch of his sexy Sunday Sport, and he recruited a former Murdoch man to take over. John Bull was a former sub-editor at the News of the World and was brought on to “beef up the news content”. By July 1987, Sullivan was purchasing the Morning Star’s London building for £2 million so he could launch the Daily Sport the following year. Sullivan had seen the industry change, telling The Independent newspaper in 1986 that hard porn publications were going out of fashion:
“I saw the change coming a few years ago, that’s why I sold magazines like Whitehouse and Play-birds and bought Parade.”
David Sullivan kept reinventing himself and investing in markets which had previously been unavailable to him as a pornographer.
A Game of Two Halves
In 2018, The Sun newspaper published an article entitled “Top model agent reveals how his girls can earn £1,000 for just one picture and lifts lid on the dark side of the glamour modelling world”The article refers to a book by Phil Green entitled“Confessions of a Model Agent”, which has since been revised, stating:
“There was one multi-millionaire football boss who summoned girls to his mansion for sex. He’d browse through newspapers and magazines and choose the girls he liked, then he’d contact photographers and find out what girls were in the studio, then he’d see if the girls would meet him. They’d turn up at his house and he’d greet them in his bathrobe and whisk them off to bed.”
Notably, the mention of the “multi-millionaire football boss” was removed in the 2021 revised version of Phil Green’s book. Even though the latter quote doesn’t directly name David Sullivan, rumours of his pattern of behaviour have been common knowledge in the industry for decades. Whether it was articles like Come to Bed if You’re Seeking a Job, or his confessions about “bonking” 20 girls a day, the rumours of his sexual proclivities are a matter of public record. At the same time, stories of a Premier League football boss being accused of sexual misconduct have grown and grown. As always, the BBC play an awkward role in this scandal.
Firstly, is it any surprise that the Mainstream Media in general have failed to investigate more accusations of rampant abuse by an influential figure? For an organisation with a News and Current Affairs budget of £324 million, the BBC have no excuse not to pursue clear evidence. Secondly, the BBC also have various awkward ties with David Sullivan, as do many of the national newspapers. For instance, for a long period of time, one of the BBC buildings was actually owned by David Sullivan. The British Broadcasting Corporation also employs one of David Sullivan’s former high-ranking staff. Tony Livsey is a DJ on Radio 5 Live and was the former editor-in-chief of the Daily Sport and Sunday Sport.
discussing whether to expose Michael Jackson in the Sport.
Over the past five years, I have dealt with the BBC several times in relation to historic sexual abuse cases. In 2019, I outed Tim Westwood as having a history of targeting young girls, and I revealed my own eyewitness experience of his deviant sexual behaviour. On two occasions, I refused to assist the BBC because, after speaking to the reporters involved, it was clear to me that they were not aiming to expose Tim Westwood’s behaviour but, rather, intended to manage the fallout as the scandal unfolded.
I am not naïve enough to believe that the BBC will suddenly change the habit of a lifetime and be the first to expose a prolific sex offender. Yet, that is what is required; someone needs to say the truth out loud. David Sullivan is being accused of raping several girls and women over 40 years. The accusations have masses of prima facie evidence, which supports multiple cases being brought against him. Some of the accusations are by women who were children at the time they allege the assaults took place. And, taking into account all the evidence I’ve seen, David Sullivan’s modus operandi paints him as a prolific sex offender who uses scare tactics, strategic litigation and his influential friends to get away with his crimes.
The BBC have almost named David Sullivan as an alleged serial rapist on several occasions. On 30 November 2023, in an article entitled “Premier League teams are playing footballers facing abuse claims”, Hannah Price states:
“Privacy rules regarding the identification of suspects mean the BBC is not naming some of the individuals concerned.”
And goes on to report on more than just football players. Under the subtitle “The Premier League boss – ‘putting children at risk’”, Price writes about one of the alleged victims:
“Kate says she was 15 when she was raped by a man who is now a boss at a Premier League club. “He’s a very powerful man who threatened me into silence,” she told the BBC. She reported it to the police in the early 1990s, but as she was “terrified”, said she only wanted to proceed if other women came forward.”
The Mirror newspaper in July 2023 had already run an article entitled “Leading Premier League figure investigated for allegedly raping two teenage girls”, which reported similar information to the BBC’s article published 4 months later.
In November 2024, the BBC reported that the Football Association opened a “safeguarding inquiry into a Premier League club boss”. The article states:
“FA regulations only cover how to respond to allegations of this nature if they occur within a “football environment”, or if concerns relate to children or vulnerable adults. Its policies allow the governing body to impose an interim suspension order blocking the individual from some or all activity within the game while it continues investigating.”
Yet, like all the authorities which are involved, the English FA have continuously failed to protect or safeguard children. The alleged victims have been let down by the police, the courts, the media, and the FA. This is a recurring theme. The safeguarding of children seems like a distant afterthought for all these organisations. The key organisations set up to protect children are instead protecting the identity of potentially one of the most prolific sex offenders in British history.
David Sullivan first acquired a stake in a major English football club in 1993, when he bought an 80% stake in Birmingham City alongside David and Ralph Gold. In 2009, Sullivan stepped down as chairman of Birmingham City following the club’s takeover by Hong Kong businessman Carson Yeung. Soon after, in January 2010, Sullivan and David Gold acquired a 50% stake in West Ham United, a Premier League club then valued at £105 million. In 2013, Sullivan became the largest shareholder at West Ham, acquiring a further 25% of shares. Since 2018, West Ham fans have consistently protested Sullivan’s ownership of the club. Recently, these protests have increased in scope and scale.
After speaking with people involved in the case, it’s clear that the West Ham supporters are desperate to get David Sullivan out of the club. The fans at the football club have real concerns about David Sullivan, a man who is facing multiple accusations of raping children, representing a family club.
The one factor which West Ham, the FA, the BBC, the police, the courts and David Sullivan have in common is that they all face the same reckoning. The population of the United Kingdom is fed up with sex offenders being protected while the victims are ignored.
It is time for everyone involved to face the facts: David Sullivan has the criminal profile of a serial offender, and justice is way overdue.
(N.B. In the coming weeks, I will release a totally explosive expose related to this article. One investigation always leads to another.)
To continue reporting on the people, companies and public entities others fear to report on, I need your help. I appreciate anything you can do to help me. Whether it’s a small donation, a like, a share, a follow or subscribe, spreading the word, or simply a kind comment, I appreciate it all. I have been systematically censored for more than 6 years. Any support is like fresh air.
