Update on the Asylum Seeker Sexual Assault "Cover-Up" in Portsmouth
Local independent councillor George Madgwick reveals more...
The independent councillor who blew the whistle on a council chief executive’s alleged attempt to cover up a r*pe charge has now confirmed she is under formal investigation.
Cllr George Madgwick, of Portsmouth City Council, revealed that council boss Natalie Brahma-Pearl is being investigated by the HR department following serious misconduct allegations.
Last month, Brahma was reported to have phoned multiple councillors—at various hours—urging them to stay silent over the rape charge brought against an asylum seeker living in Portsmouth.
According to Madgwick, after he expressed concern about the move, Brahma contacted him directly at midnight, pleading with him not to go public.
When The Sun approached the council, a spokesman effectively confirmed the cover-up attempt, citing concerns over “community tensions” as the reason for keeping the incident quiet.
The excuse drew swift criticism.
It mirrored the same rationale used by police and councils in the grooming gang scandal—where large numbers of men, disproportionately of Middle Eastern ancestry and/or Muslim background, groomed, racially targeted, and sexually abused thousands of young white girls across the UK.
In both cases, the safety of young girls was deprioritised to “preserve” community stability.
The case in Portsmouth carries wider safety implications.
The accused asylum seeker was being housed at the Royal Beach Hotel in Southsea, funded entirely by the taxpayer. Local residents later told The Brief that young girls regularly walk past the hotel on their way to school.
Yet while a local council attempting to suppress uncomfortable truths is one thing, the silence of a local newspaper tasked with informing the public is another.
As Madgwick later pointed out, The News (Portsmouth)—the city’s major local outlet—has yet to cover the scandal.
It appears they published a brief report on the rape charge on June 13, but omitted the name of the accused. This was in contrast to their earlier reporting—for instance, on March 24—when they named the suspect facing a r*pe charge.
Not a single story has mentioned Brahma-Pearl’s misconduct allegations, or the investigation now under way. Not one has quoted Madgwick.
When he contacted the paper to ask why, an editor cited legal concerns. But that didn’t stack up—national outlets like The Sun, Daily Mail, Express, GB News, and TalkTV have all covered the story, many arguably under far tighter legal scrutiny than a local paper.
But it gets worse.
Madgwick has since heard reports that The News (Portsmouth) has been deleting online comments on unrelated articles—comments from readers asking why the scandal hadn’t been covered.
If true, this is no longer just editorial omission—it’s active censorship.
At first glance, such behaviour may seem unusual—until you follow the money.
Portsmouth City Council pays National World Publishing Ltd, The News’s parent company, thousands each month for “corporate services.”
Payment logs show a mix of small payments—between £100 and £400—and larger amounts, including fees of up to £4,000, listed as “public health” messaging.
Many of these payments fall into the catch-all category of “miscellaneous expenses”—but are likely advertising for council initiatives.
This is from an outlet that wrote a gushing review of Portsmouth City Council’s decision to become a council of sanctuary in October 2024. The council pledged to create a “welcoming” culture for people in asylum or resettlement programmes.
So, we’re looking at a local outlet possibly financially reliant on council cash, avoiding stories damning to that very council.
As for the investigation into Brahma-Pearl—it’s not independent. It’s being conducted by the council’s own monitoring officer, who reports to the very leadership now under scrutiny.
Liberal Democrat council leader Steve Pitt—who still features a “Welcome Refugees” banner on his X profile—could have initiated an independent, external review but instead passed the matter to HR.
The internal probe may take up to two months.
In the meantime, another young woman has had life upended, likely never to look at life the same way because authorities failed to protect her—like so many others did and still do—over some warped politicised conception of morality.
If there’s one silver lining these developments have made clear, it’s this: the era of successful suppression is over.
Elected representatives like George Madgwick are no longer willing to play the “community tensions” game.
Do you believe our best days lie ahead?
Will you keep watching as our politicians and broadcasters push for yet more surveillance, censorship, and control?
If you want to push back—if not today, maybe someday—supporting independent journalism can (genuinely) make a real impact.
In the past year, The Stark Naked Brief reached over 110 million people on X. Sometimes, all it takes is one post—one uncomfortable truth—to wake someone up and put another dent in the uniparty’s monopoly.
Sod community tensions. Do your jobs.
There are similar people in the (un) civil sevice that should be investigated and removed.