David Sullivan’s Sport newspapers used sexualised images of underage girls as “bait for predatory men”, the former victims’ commissioner has said.
Vera Baird spoke amid scrutiny of the newspapers’ ’Countdown to 16’ feature, where during Sullivan’s tenure as owner, models were pictured in lingerie and bikinis in the weeks before their 16th birthdays, until they could legally be shown topless.
Sullivan, 77, announced his resignation as a director and co-chair of West Ham on Saturday, before the publication of a joint investigation by the BBC and the Times in which seven women accused him of sexual misconduct.
Three women claimed that the former pornography baron abused his power as the owner of the Daily and Sunday Sport newspapers to prey on them for sex when they were seeking work. A further four accused him of exploitative and predatory behaviour, including allegations he tried to pressure them into sex during business meetings.
Through his lawyers, Sullivan has “categorically” denied the allegations, which the BBC and Times said spanned decades, starting in the 1980s and involving women in their late teens and early 20s.
He added: “After a lifetime spent building businesses in the adult industry, in which I have met thousands of women, it is sadly inevitable that a small number of improper conduct claims are being made against me.”
Sullivan founded the Sunday Sport in 1986, followed by the Daily Sport in 1991. For more than 15 years, the titles celebrated the 16th birthdays of young models by showing them semi-naked. Some appeared in sexualised shoots in the weeks before they turned 16.
One 15-year-old model who appeared in the Sunday Sport was photographed with just her hands covering her chest. The newspaper also printed drawings of how its readers imagined another 15-year-old girl would look topless.
“The age rules are there to protect vulnerable children from exploitation, but this inverts that protection by using under aged girls in sexualised images, as bait for predatory men,” Baird said.
“It is deliberately coming as close as possible to breaking the law to show it is naughty but nice to like children. [Sullivan is] not a man who should have any safeguarding responsibilities and hard to see how he ought ever to have had control of a newspaper.”
At the time, the Sport maintained it had acted legally, by not showing the girls fully topless until they reached 16. The law changed in 2004, meaning it is now illegal to show indecent images of anyone under 18.
Sullivan remains West Ham’s largest shareholder despite his resignation as co-chair and director. The new football regulator could force him to sell his 38.8% stake in the east London club.
The IFR, introduced under last year’s Football Governance Act, is the game’s independent watchdog and oversees its own owners, directors and senior executives (ODSE) regime for clubs across the Premier League and English Football League. It has the power to expel any figures it considers unsuitable.
An IFR spokesperson said: “These are extremely serious allegations. We are in contact with West Ham on this matter and will use our statutory powers to seek urgent information from David Sullivan relating to his suitability under our owners, directors and senior executives regime. We are unable to comment further at this stage.”
The former Home Office minister Alex Davies-Jones questioned whether Sullivan should have been allowed to play a powerful role in football given his previous business practices.
He has been a prominent figure in the English game for more than 30 years. Before his involvement with West Ham, he co-owned Birmingham City.
Davies-Jones said she acknowledged that Sullivan had not broken the law via his ownership of the Sport but had failed to show any insight into the wider societal impact of some of its content.
Some models who appeared in the newspapers at 16 said their glamour modelling careers affected their education, or had a detrimental effect on their mental health.
Davies-Jones said: “Times change and public cultures and attitudes move on but he himself has not seemed to have any contrition for his behaviour.
“That speaks to more of his character. He hasn’t acknowledged how deeply troubling that behaviour, that culture [was to] us all as a society.
“There is no atonement, no contrition, no recognition of [how] that business model fuels a culture of violence against women and girls.”
Lawyers for Sullivan did not respond to a request for comment.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: theguardian.com
