WORCESTER MAN DAVID KEMP INVOLVED IN SEXUAL WEB CHAT SCANDAL AT BROMYARD SCHOOL
In a disturbing case that has shocked the community, David Kemp, a former deputy headteacher from Worcester, was found to have engaged in inappropriate online conversations with a teenage boy while working at Queen Elizabeth Humanities College in Bromyard.The incident, which took place in March 2013, involved Kemp attempting to incite a boy he believed was 14 years old to perform sexual acts on webcam, raising serious concerns about misconduct and abuse of trust.
David Kemp, aged 58 and residing on Vauxhall Street, Rainbow Hill, Worcester, has a notable background, having been awarded an MBE and actively participating in the choir at St Stephen’s Church in Barbourne, Worcester.
His reputation was tarnished when these allegations surfaced, leading to a court appearance at Worcester Crown Court for sentencing.
The case came to light after police seized the computer of the now 20-year-old victim, who was 16 at the time of the investigation.
During the investigation, authorities uncovered a series of online conversations between Kemp and the young man.
The victim initially claimed to be 14, which Kemp responded to by expressing that he did not mind because he thought the boy was 'cute.' Prosecutor Tariq Bin Shakoor explained that because the victim was not a child at the time of the messages, the charge was classified as an 'attempt' rather than a full offence.
The exchanges began on Skype, where Kemp shared personal details about himself, including his role as a deputy headteacher and his involvement in music and working with young boys.
Kemp also made disturbing comments about finding it difficult to control himself around young students, including those as young as 11.
During the chats, Kemp claimed that his actions were 'fantasy' influenced by alcohol consumption.
He also expressed a bizarre preference for 'sucking toes' and engaged in mutual sexual acts with the boy via webcam, although they never met in person.
Kemp repeatedly expressed a desire to meet the boy in real life.
The victim later revealed that he was actually 16, and subsequent messages continued between the two.
Over a period from March 15 to April 18, 2013, approximately 1,589 messages were exchanged, not all of which were sexual in nature.
Kemp was arrested on May 26 of the previous year, during which he claimed to have no memory of sending the messages.
However, in a subsequent interview, he admitted that he might have been aroused due to alcohol influence at the time.
Defense lawyer Richard Hull described the incident as isolated and emphasized that a significant amount of time had passed since the offence.
He pointed out that there was no evidence of other offences or use of software to wipe data, and suggested that Kemp was struggling with his sexuality, with his inhibitions lowered by alcohol consumption.
The only aggravating factor identified was the age difference between Kemp and the victim, which was considered in the sentencing process.
This case highlights the serious implications of online misconduct and the importance of safeguarding young people from exploitation, especially involving individuals in positions of authority and trust.
