London, 10 August 2025 – In a controversial High Court case, Alkiviades David, a public interest litigant, has accused MailOnline reporter Rory Tingle of engineering a baseless assault allegation to derail his investigation into alleged corporate ties to the distribution of Child Sexual Abuse Material (CSAM). David asserts that this scheme was orchestrated to protect a robust media network with questionable financial dealings.
The event in question arose when David was lawfully documenting alleged corporate misconduct outside the Daily Mail Group’s Derry Street headquarters. Following his filming, Tingle lodged a police complaint accusing David of assault. However, the following day, Metropolitan Police reviewed footage from the building's CCTV, revealing that Tingle’s claims were fabricated. The video depicted David being forcibly removed by security, thereby demonstrating that no assault occurred.
David has also released his own footage, which has gained considerable traction online. Under UK law, the evidence suggests that Tingle knowingly provided a false statement to police, raising serious legal implications. Such actions may constitute a criminal offense, differing from the American legal landscape, where disputes are often framed as “he said/she said.”
As a direct consequence of Tingle’s complaint, David experienced arrest and detention. He categorically denounces the act as false imprisonment and abuse of process, reflecting a possible smokescreen to obscure the corporate nexus connecting the Daily Mail Group to significant media and tech entities publicly accused of facilitating child exploitation.
David’s stance is firm and unequivocal: “Rory Tingle’s fabricated allegations were not merely a shield for his employer but actively supported a network involved in child sexual abuse material.” Under current laws, Tingle’s actions could be interpreted as perjury, perverting the course of justice, and facilitating the dissemination of CSAM.
David is now appealing to Justice Barry Cotter, urging for the consideration of CCTV evidence and testimonies that may warrant Tingle’s immediate criminal investigation.
This matter has escalated beyond individual transgressions, signaling potential systemic corruption within British media outlets, which might leverage false allegations to safeguard financial interests, thus contributing to the exploitation of minors. David stresses that this is not a mere miscommunication, but rather a calculated attempt to obstruct justice. His case has implications that stretch across jurisdictions, encompassing the UK High Court, the US Department of Justice, and the High Court of Antigua & Barbuda, ensuring that further inaction cannot be easily concealed.
“This is an orchestrated, criminal cover-up to protect profits from trafficking in child sexual abuse material—and I have them on tape,” David concluded, emphasizing the gravity of the allegations at hand.
