Conflict of interest: Judith Dawson, Beatrix Campbell, and Broxtowe

During our recent look at the Broxtowe false SRA allegations, which generated the suppressed JET report and the response from Team 4, we had occasion to re-examine some material we’ve seen before, but hadn’t properly understood in its context.

For example, who can forget the epic scene in this video, “Listen to the Children”, produced by journalist Beatrix Campbell for Channel 4’s “Dispatches” programme?

In her role as Plucky Satan-Hunter, armed only with a torch and a film crew, Campbell opens a drawer during her ultra-spooky exploration of ultra-spooky tunnels under an ultra-spooky graveyard, and finds…a very modern-looking battery-operated vibrator?

Yes, the explorations of the graveyard are pretty hilarious—of course, you’d never expect to find a cross carved in a wall in a graveyard, would you? And a candle with bits of burnt paper? Highly unlikely that kids might choose the privacy of a graveyard to smoke a little weed, make a little love, get down tonight….

Oh, sorry. Wrong post. Moving right along….

In the notes under the video, the poster states:

Replete with similar melodrama to the Beyond Belief programme the ‘discoveries’ in Campbell’s piece were ‘secret’ tunnels under a cemetery in Nottingham which matched some of the testimony of children and a cache of sexual prosthetics found in a Lodge in the cemetery. – Only after the emotive effects of the programme was it disclosed that Nottingham is riddled with such tunnels and caves and that this is common knowledge to all residents.

The cache of prosthetics turned out to be the weekly haul of litter from the grounds which the caretaker was waiting to dump. These weak circumstances lead Dispatches to claim ‘new evidence’. Pathetically many ‘believers’ still consider the evidence presented in this programme to be worthy.

Beatrix Campbell and Judith Dawson/Jones

Re-watching this in the context of what we now know about the JET report, its suppression, and the Team 4 report which was meant to invalidate the Joint Enquiry Team’s findings just in case the suppression thing didn’t work, we were struck by the fact that one of Beatrix Campbell’s primary sources for the video was none other than Judith Dawson, who would later change her name to Judith Jones.

She makes her first appearance at 07:00 in the above video, and is introduced as “Judith Dawson, Principal Professional Officer, Child Protection”. Judith Jones 2018-06-17We have mentioned in previous posts that Campbell and Dawson were—and still are—romantically involved. The question is, was this the case when this programme was made in the early 1990s?

David Aaronovitch and Beatrix Campbell

We are not the first to wonder this, of course.

We have mentioned that in the wake of Mrs Justice Pauffley’s verdict on the Hampstead fact-finding hearing in March 2015, Times journalist and Hampstead resident David Aaronovitch produced a two-part BBC Radio programme which dealt with the Broxtowe case in some detail.

This stirred up a shit-storm of epic proportions. Three of those who were either interviewed for the programme or featured in it made complaints about the programme via two blogs, as well as formal complaints to the BBC. The details of their 18 complaints may be found here; only two were upheld.

We were particularly interested in a Twitter conversation between Mr Aaronovitch and Ms Campbell at around this time:Aaronovitch & Campbell Twitter 2018-06-17 1It’s interesting that rather than address the substance of Mr Aaronovitch’s challenge—and there is no doubt that they both know what that is—Ms Campbell chooses to take an arch tone, and accuse him of seeing conspiracy theories where none exist.Aaronovitch & Campbell Twitter 2018-06-17 2

Aaronovitch & Campbell Twitter 2018-06-17 3Mr Aaronovitch goes directly to the heart of the issue: Ms Campbell’s personal relationship with Ms Dawson/Jones ought to have been declared when they wrote the book Stolen Voices together. And if that relationship began prior to the production of the Dispatches programme, it ought to have been declared there, as well.

In his post on BarristerBlogger, Mr Aaronovitch goes into more detail about Stolen Voices:

Campbell takes what can only be described as a “high moral tone” about what she conceives the job of a journalist to be and how balanced and evidence-based that job is. Well, I have the advantage of having paid quite a lot of money to get hold of the book she co-wrote with Judith Dawson (by then Judith Jones) and published in 1999 under the title of Stolen Voices: an Exposure of the campaign to Discredit Childhood Testimony.

The publishers, The Women’s Press, withdrew the title before distribution on the basis of threats of legal action to which they must have considered that they would be vulnerable. I imagine that the danger was spotted by the publisher’s legal advisers, but what the problem was and why the offending material could not have been excised, I do not know. But what I do know is that the book is a 226 page hatchet job, which seems, among other things, to be paying off old scores against critics of Dawson and other social workers and which deploys guilt-by-association on an industrial scale. …

In hers and Dawson’s book Stolen Voices, there are desultory attempts to question some of the facts in the JET report – and in 600 pages one can imagine that there are the occasional errors. In Stolen Voices police are characterized, essentially, as clodhopping males who distrust the women social workers and who semi-deliberately set out not to find the physical evidence that will vindicate the Erin Brockoviches of Nottinghamshire. The dangers of such a denialist approach for the police (one can imagine what would have happened to the denying cops if a video of the rituals, the remains of babies or, say, a blood-stained altar had been found by journalists) is not something Campbell or Dawson consider.

But by far and away the preferred method for dealing with JET, and casting it as part of a concerted “backlash” against social workers and abused children, is guilt-by-association. Campbell may like to tell us how many times in the last 25 years she thinks she has written an article or a chapter or a blogpost blackening the record of John Gwatkin, the senior social worker on the JET team. Readers will find her at it here in 1993, again in the Guardian in 1995, and in Stolen Voices (1999). In each of these she relates how Gwatkin – as social services director in Newark – was deficient in his handling of two cases completely unrelated to the handling of the JET report. In Stolen Voices the clear implication is that Gwatkin’s record suggests that he was unsuitable for the task and inferring that the case made by the JET report is therefore weakened because of his involvement in it.

To be perfectly clear: we do not know the date when the relationship began between Ms Campbell and Ms Dawson, as she then was. Certainly there is every possibility that it occurred after the Dispatches programme was broadcast. But it does seem very probable that the relationship began prior to the publication and subsequent withdrawal of Stolen Voices.

To draw attention to this is not a question of seeing conspiracy theories behind every door. Nor do we have any prurient interest in the details of the two women’s lives.

Rather, it is a question of journalistic integrity. Any journalist worth his or her salt ought to be well aware of the dangers of conflict of interest, which often apply to financial interests, but also include close personal or romantic relationships. At the BBC, journalists are required to sign declarations of conflict of interest prior to broadcast, as any undeclared close relationship could cast doubt upon the ability of the journalist to cover the subject in an evenhanded manner.

We have not read Stolen Voices, but if it was, as Mr Aaronovitch claims, a hatchet-job against anyone who had ever wronged Ms Dawson/Jones, it was critically important that their personal relationship be made clear to the reader. Mr Aaronovitch, who has read the book, says that it was not.

To say, as Ms Campbell did, “My relationship with JJones well known, vy public” is nowhere near sufficient. It implies that everyone reading their books or watching their television programme ought to be well aware of their relationship status, possibly through some sort of osmotic process?

Blasting the JET lead social worker

Whether Stolen Voices was a hatchet-job or not, Mr Aaronovitch is certainly correct in pointing out that Ms Campell’s 1993 article in The Independent, “A dangerous place to be young: Why have 18 vulnerable children died in Nottinghamshire in 18 months?” specifically pillories John Gwatkin, head social worker on the JET team, blaming him by inference for child-protection problems in Nottinghamshire:

The connection between the Broxtowe controversy and the county’s current crisis is John Gwatkin, Newark area director.

Gwatkin’s work has surprised and alarmed colleagues for some time. He had been criticised by police in 1988 for refusing to put a two- year-old boy on the at-risk register after his mother had rolled around laughing when she sent him spinning in the tumble drier. She had also beaten and scalded him on his genitals. She was jailed for 18 months. Gwatkin was pilloried by the judge, and subsequently called to an internal inquiry. 

Yet a year later he was appointed by the social services director, David White, to head an internal inquiry into the Broxtowe case. This inquiry was to examine the serious rift that had emerged between social workers and police about the reliability of children’s evidence in abuse investigations.

Gwatkin’s Joint Inquiry Team endorsed the police and promoted the notion that social workers had brainwashed children. Although David White accepted this thesis, he later retracted and Gwatkin’s report was thrown out by the authority’s social services committee in 1990. Furthermore, the children’s evidence was subsequently affirmed in several court hearings.

And would anyone care to guess who Ms Campbell’s source was on this story? Go on, three guesses. We dare you.

That something is badly wrong with Nottinghamshire’s social services is confirmed in a recently leaked confidential document, dating from early 1992 and written by Judith Dawson, an independent child abuse consultant employed by the department. Her report demonstrated that an authority with a consistently good record of caring for children at risk during the Eighties has undergone a spectacular decline in standards. It is widely thought that this is a direct result of changes in managerial practice within the social services department. …

Dawson also reminded the directorate of its obligation to assimilate new knowledge about adults’ dangerousness, in this case Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy, later to become notorious in the Beverly Allitt case, which happened in the same area. She warned: ‘I would need reassurance that the police, who were recently resistant to the inclusion of Munchausen’s in the (child protection) procedures, are open to new research and new areas of abuse.’ …

Dawson’s role was being purged. The official reason was restructuring. The unofficial reason, according to senior staff, was that she picked up on too much child abuse and that she and the specialist child protection team were being punished for criticising the director and the chief constable in the aftermath of the county’s largest child abuse case, the Broxtowe case, which had earned Dawson and the team the congratulations of a High Court judge and the prime minister in 1989.

Just a quick reminder on that last point: yes, the social work team in Broxtowe did earn public congratulations from a High Court judge and the Prime Minister in 1989. This is because the real abuse which took place in Broxtowe was identified, and social workers and police coordinated efforts to ensure that all the abusers were arrested, tried, and convicted. However, all of this took place before there was any whiff of “Satanic ritual abuse” about the Broxtowe case.

As Mr Aaronovitch correctly pointed out in their Twitter conversation, whenever Ms  Campbell publishes or speaks on issues in which her partner has an interest, she has a professional obligation to declare her interest. Attempting to put people off the scent by accusing critics of seeing conspiracy theories where none exist, or by accusing them of being anti-woman, anti-feminist, or any other sort of backsliding revisionist you care to name just will not do.

person holding type writer beside teacup and saucer on table

Photo by on


42 thoughts on “Conflict of interest: Judith Dawson, Beatrix Campbell, and Broxtowe

  1. Fascinating stuff, EC. And very disturbing. What is it with this woman? She takes disingenuous to a whole new level. How she sleeps at night I’ve no idea.

    Did Mr. Gwatkin ever take legal action against her for her defamatory barrage, do we know?

    As for her exchange with that nice Mr. Aaronovitch, if I may switch to vacuous teen troll mode for a second, Beatty got pwned 😀

    Liked by 3 people

    • Great research there EC. You have the patience of a Saint to go through all that! It is fascinating to read how deception works & is largely believed!

      Oh go Tracey, let everyone know again how you singlehandedly took down a pedo ring, yeah right. Perhaps her ‘donations’ are dwindling so she needed to bring it up again. I’m sure her former BFF will one day write an essay on her former friend. 😕

      Liked by 2 people

    • I don’t know whether Mr Gwatkin sued for defamation, but he did write a letter to the editor in response to Campbell’s hatchet-job:

      Sir: I find it amusing that Beatrix Campbell (‘A dangerous place to be young’, 22 December) thinks that I have ‘surprised and alarmed colleagues for some time’, given that I retired from Nottinghamshire Social Services two years ago.

      She should also have known that, far from being pilloried (in the ‘tumble drier case’), the social workers were praised by the judge. The Independent reported on 12 April 1988 that the judge said:

      “It is perfectly clear that the social workers were showing a considerable degree of care and keeping a close eye on what was happening. That is a most satisfactory state of affairs and they have to be commended. It is only right that the public should know they obviously took a considerable amount of care; the child perhaps received more supervision than if he had been put on the register.”

      With regard to the other family, Ms Campbell will be pleased to know that two case conferences were held and all her concerns were addressed.

      The Broxtowe Joint Inquiry report had nothing to do with sexual or physical abuse. We addressed the issue of ritual abuse and our findings were subsequently confirmed by both the Rochdale and Orkney inquiries.

      I am proud of the fact that after chairing hundreds of cases during my 17 years as Newark area director not a single child suffered further significant harm.

      Yours faithfully,


      Liked by 1 person

  2. Identifies as a feminist, a socialist, a communist and a republican.

    Accepts an OBE from the queen without a moments hesitation.

    Morals of a sewer rat, and the looks.


    • Hey mate. You lose the argument when you judge women on how they look.

      As a leftie with as many years at being a leftie as Bea I did feel like slapping her with a sock full of horse manure when she took that OBE. (I rarely act on these feelings which is just as well.) Which part of ‘British Empire’ doesn’t she get?

      Really enjoyed the comments under this article though. Chewbacca? lmao.

      Liked by 1 person

      • agreed
        Grobnob your posts are funny and spot on but can you please try to curb the insults based on looks, weight etc.?
        No point in losing the moral high ground when your target is so far below you

        Liked by 2 people

      • I didn’t judge her on her looks, just insulted the noble species of sewer rats in my zealous fervour to insult her. Ratty I never meant it. On a slight tangent if the images I’ve seen of deb madmoolah are accurate she’s actually a very attractive woman.


    • Bea gives socialism a bad name. But I can’t talk as I’m a socialist royalist and think Charles & Camilla are fab.
      I should be shot or exiled. Oh that’s right, I have been.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. On another topic I’ve done about 30 minutes worth of short videos of Deborah’s rants set to the rubber faced Mel B from Bo Selecta with the colours all psychedelic and trippy. Something to look forward to eh ? Does the mad bint pop in here ? Tell her she’s in for a right roasting

    Liked by 1 person

  4. Excellent post EC!

    Conflicts of interest and inappropriate (un)-professional relationships run through the satan hunters activities like a thick vein of blue mould through an especially ripe and pungent cheese.

    Dr Fleur Fisher fraudulently pretending to be Carol Felstead’s next of kin, stealing her car, stealing her possessions and attempting to have Carol cremated without her family’s knowledge or consent.

    Judy Williams acting in a professional capacity designing care packages for patients diagnosed with DID while at the same time acting as a foster mother for Pamela Edwards, a vulnerable adult and the recipient of a £500,000 per annum care package from the Clinic for Dissociative Studies

    Colin Ross’s horrific malpractice and abuses towards Roma Hart

    Dr Lawrence Pazder acting as a psychiatrist for Michelle Smith, diagnosing her with DID, then co-authoring a SRA fictional book with her , publishing it as a non-fictional book and even marrying his patient Michelle.

    Judy Byington’s many abuses, therapeutic and financial, against vulnerable adult Jenny Hill

    Vanessa Clark’s revolting sexual abuses against vulnerable psychotherapy clients

    Then there’s Sinason and her many associates – oh the stories I could tell, and will

    Have none of these people heard of professional boundaries? Of course they have, they just don’t care about transgressing them, they just think that boundaries apply to everyone else and not to them

    Liked by 2 people

    • Is Angie pretending not to know about Tribal Diva aka Hope Girl, Naima Dawn Feagin of QEG fame, boasting about taking down Tims channel ? Plus claiming that her version of God struck him down, for her ? Did she not enjoy HopeGirls crowing about taking my channel down too ?……….. Hypocritical non christian like behaviour, given she can only use copyright or privacy strikes, maliciously , yet gives her mates and partners in defamation & false allegations a pass, colluding with Fresh Start Foundations Wild Cat, too. Plus either HopeGirl misused the copyright claim rules or Angie employed her as her agent to do so, given that one of her vile defaming videos about me, that I posted was struck by her.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Is Angie pretending not to know about Tribal Diva aka Hope Girl, Naima Dawn Feagin of QEG fame, boasting about taking down Tims channel ? Plus claiming that her version of God struck him down, for her ? Did she not enjoy HopeGirls crowing about taking my channel down too ?……….. Hypocritical non christian like behaviour, given she can only use copyright or privacy strikes, maliciously , yet gives her mates and partners in defamation & false allegations a pass, colluding with Fresh Start Foundations Wild Cat, too. Plus either HopeGirl misused the copyright claim rules or Angie employed her as her agent to do so, given that one of her vile defaming videos about me, that I posted was struck by her.


    • I visited Jonathan Wedger’s website and needless to say there is the inevitable plea for donations. Why do these phony campaigners need money?. All they do is spout the usual rubbish with unproved claims and never provide any evidence and usually by doing the Round Robin circuit of troofer amateur YouTube “broadcasters”. All from their living room via Skype etc.

      It’s most annoying that The Met never releases reasons why some cops are “persuaded” to leave the force. I recall the late Anna Racoon (and I believed her) had a couple of Met contacts who were scathing of a certain high profile ex-copper involved in the Savile scandal and inferred he was “invited” by his bosses to choose an alternative career.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. A simple google will dismiss 99.9 percent of this latest TM post as her usual fabrication, Ivan Geffin was acquitted and then on a retrial there was no evidence offered, so no judge’s summing up, no praise for Tracey. And she wasn’t a victim nor were her children but she was a key witness? Have any of her supporters ever thought to question what use her evidence would have been, third party hearsay. Her poor daughter was abused she would have gave those children to anyone, she fled Belfast last year to Belinda’s house after leaving her sons with a homeless junkie and being reported to social services, she had drug parties in her home with her wee girls locked in their rooms that lasted for days on end. Now she’s back to this nonsense, leading people down a garden path. At the end she claims she’d to fight like a lion to get her kids out of care, that’s another lie she left them in care voluntarily and took off, the eldest one was left with an aunt, she chucked her out of the car and drove off without even rapping the door. it was only years later when someone from the Social Security realised she’d still been claiming benefits for them and stopped the money that she even went near the family courts to get them back. I don’t know if Geffin was a paedophile or not but I do know TM played no role in his capture, it was a child victim who alerted authorities and she was only included when her daughter was hospitalised with internal injuries and the police came to the hospital to question her.

    Liked by 2 people

  6. Rumpole, those are really big accusations to make about her, the drugs part I mean. She doesn’t seem to be drugged on her lives, a bit ridiculous yes, but not under the influence of anything. I don’t know of anyone on drugs, nor have I met anyone on them as far as I know, but I would think, (judging by tv), that if someone was having drug parties they would be seriously addicted to them & that would show up on her lives. I could be wrong. 😎

    Liked by 1 person

    • I’m not talking about now Rosie but the background to her being in England when her older children were little this is all dated to the early 2000s, all the rest is documented and there are those who were left with the care of her children could corroberate that.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Rumpole, I thought you were speaking about the present in some of your post. I got a bit mixed up I think. Hopefully she has straightened out that problem now, some do as they get older & wiser.

        Liked by 2 people

    • I’m not talking about now Rosie but the background to her being in England when her older children were little this is all dated to the early 2000s, all the rest is documented and there are those who were left with the care of her children could corroberate that.

      Liked by 2 people

  7. Pingback: ‘The Hard Facts about Satanic Ritual Abuse’: Christian evangelicals speak out | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH

Comments are closed.