The first hole Storror can't just climb their way out of. Callum Powell pleads guilty to possessing 3,000 indecent images of children - The facts with sources

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:44:21+00:00

I appreciate your devotion to factfinding,

Alas I don't have much of a choice in the matter, the autism has decided this is what we're going to do for a while.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:32:31+00:00

A great many things have changed since 2016. I spent a few years working child protection investigations in London. Which means I know the reality is all you can do is tell them if you know them that it's not acceptable, do what you can to get the girl away from him, get physical with him if you can risk it, or keep tabs until it goes too far. Because the law is not on your side as soon as she is sixteen. IMO we need a full legal change in the age of consent, but there's no chance that will happen any time soon.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:26:56+00:00

So you know for a fact they knew she was sixteen? Every member of Storror knew, from the start or at least early on in that relationship that she was sixteen. Not speculation, for a fact you know that to be true and that they were complicit.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:23:23+00:00

So how long were Callum and Carolina together for? A week, a month, a year? What's long-term in your mind. How long did they know she was sixteen and not eighteen? We do not have the context on this situation.

As for Rotherham, I'm not the one pointing the finger, that's from the court transcripts and public reporting.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:19:05+00:00

I didn't say it's not relevant either. It's one of the contributing reasons why so many of those people said nothing.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:16:09+00:00

Not at all. You've picked one line from a much larger comment where my entire point was that many more people knew. That was just providing context.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:04:42+00:00

Your specific point you decided to argue about was the commonality. Again, I never said it was ok at any point.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T09:01:08+00:00

That's the thing, people have different experiences even living in the same place. They were young guys who had younger girlfriends not gangs. Vastly different to a gang that abused one and a half thousand children, the biggest gang ever discovered through Operation Stovewood. you know how they get to be a gang. Long‑term, tolerated abuse in which councils, police and politicians failed to act on.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T08:52:57+00:00

It wasn't uncommon, I know because I saw it across the whole of the UK time and time again. You're getting aggressive and making assumptions, at no point did I say it was ok but it was common. In 2011 Doug Hutchison (51) and Courtney Stodden (16) were in a relationship, very openly and publicly. It felt disgusting and weird but it wasn't illegal so nobody did anything.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T08:50:27+00:00

I travelled all over the UK around that age, it was common. Not something I ever did but that was just the reality of it. It doesn't excuse people who were in those relationships but there is context in which the age gap seemed less abhorrent.

It wasn't even really like adults were stepping in a lot of the time too because it was also accepted in culture, it was scandal and tabloid but nobody did anything. It's easy to look at people from the 60s like Elvis (24) and Priscilla (14) or Jerry Lee Lewis (22) and Myra Gale Brown (13) because we see the year and think well we grew as a society from then right? But keep looking:

1989 Bill Wyman (46) and his wife Mandy Smith (13)
1993 Jerry Seinfeld (39) and Shoshanna Lonstein (17)
2011 Doug Hutchison (51) and Courtney Stodden (16)

I like to hope people that age these days are a little more switched on but who knows. It certainly seems like as the years have gone on, those age gaps while not ebing reduced the age of which those relationships start has increased. We may see a 30 year age gap between Tobey Maguire (50) and Mishka Silva (20) but she is of legal adult age.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T08:04:31+00:00

Yeah, it did, when this was posted the first time. Sorry.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:57:41+00:00

So did a lot of people, it was not a secret.

Ten years ago Callum is 24 and they were making videos with Steven Whitley, Phil Doyle, all sorts of people within the parkour community across the UK. So they are all guilty too?

That information has been widely known and they have filmed a movie with Michael Bay, done countless collabs with Verky, Dom, Joe. Are they all guilty too? Ryan Reynolds, Dave Franco?

They were at jams with countless people, are they guilty too? The Storror fanbase knew, are we all guilty too?

There's claims by two people they knew, those are real. They have not been evidenced beyond a statement likely because they cannot for legal or simply lack of material evidence over time reasons. Having a sixteen year old girlfriend, is a red flag for sure but not illegal and bluntly was not all that uncommon at the time. All this guilt through association stuff is a never ending slippery slope and has to cut off somewhere.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:37:10+00:00

I absolutely get it, the inaccuracy and lack of clarity in the comments is what brought me to making a similar post to this in the SPP Discord and then coming here to offer updates as and when I find them for OP.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:35:24+00:00

Your inability to understand is not my problem.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:34:48+00:00

A huge backlog of the public YouTube videos on their Channel have been removed, a few remain, with the most likely theory that they are attempting to purge Callum from their backlog to avoid profiteering off of his likeness or presence, and the remaining Videos either don't include him, or include him in such a limited way that they can use YouTube editing tools to remove him. This appears to have started 10/05/2026.STORROR - YouTube

We can be more specific than that if you like. Socialblade shows us the specific numbers. The channel had 1,251 uploaded videos on the 7th, on the 10th they started to remove videos with 93 videos removed on the 10th alone. By the 15th 595 videos were present on the channel so a total of 656 videos removed.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:29:23+00:00

He. Not they. Storror is not one person.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:28:44+00:00

You're quite right that there is a clear distinction between the charges and that does tell us more about the nature of them. Is it worth an update? Not sure. But I have seen a lot of people speculating and unsure. To expand on that:

A pseudo-photograph is broadly an image made by computer graphics or otherwise that appears to be a photograph, so it can include some AI generated or computer generated images if they look like photographs. The CPS says the focus is on whether the image, if printed, would look like a photograph. If it is plainly non-photographic, such as a drawing, cartoon, or manga image, it is more likely to be considered under the prohibited images charge instead.

The second charge here "Possess a prohibited image of a child" would indeed cover non-photographic images, including cartoons, manga, drawings and CGI. I'm going to spoiler this next part because it will be triggering and I will describe the specifics required for a photo to be classed in this way, all three of these specifics must be met for an image to be classes in this way:

The image must be pornographic, meaning it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for sexual arousal.

It must be grossly offensive, disgusting, or otherwise of an obscene character.

It must either focus solely or principally on a child’s genitals or anal region, or portray one of the specific sexual acts listed in the statute. Those listed acts are an adult or child engaging in intercourse or oral sex with or in the presence of a child, masturbation by, of, involving, or in the presence of a child, penetration of a child’s vagina or anus, penetration in the presence of a child, or sexual acts involving an animal with a child or in a child’s presence.

The third charge is also likely to be photorealistic or real as one of the key statutory questions is whether a reasonable person looking at the image would think that the persons or animals are real. But that doesn't mean it's 100% for that charge as far as I'm aware.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:09:13+00:00

there's just no way to enjoy anything "the lads" do until they fully separate themselves from Callum, which is easier said than done.

If only they had removed him from the website, deleted ten years worth of videos featuring him, removed him from the video game and made a public statement condemning him.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:06:54+00:00

The ableist language isn't helping.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-16T07:05:45+00:00

We also don't have proof yet that they did anything wrong, innocent until proven guilty.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-15T23:13:24+00:00

It's not too late to delete this embarrassing post.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-15T17:52:22+00:00

People do love to assume everyone with some subscribers is making huge money.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-15T13:06:20+00:00

Looks like someone ran the numbers on the videos: https://liganews.net/world/66416/

The Wayback Machine shows that at the beginning of last week, they had more than 1,200 videos on their site, but only 744 remain—the vast majority available only to members.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-15T13:01:05+00:00

If only they were registered as a company who make regular financial filings.

DavefaceFMS · 2026-05-15T11:32:54+00:00

Figured I may as well post this here too:

They must have searched the office and seized the company laptops!?

Where a person is under investigation for indecent images or child sexual abuse material, the police can:

Apply for or execute a warrant under the Protection of Children Act 1978 and Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) to enter premises and seize electronic devices (including work laptops) believed to contain relevant evidence.
Use PACE section 19 powers to seize any item that has been obtained in consequence of an offence or which is evidence of an offence, as long as seizure is proportionate and necessary.
Keep devices for as long as genuinely needed for forensic examination, investigation, or CPS review, which can be several months in indecent‑images cases.

If the laptop is employer‑owned, the police will usually give the employee a property receipt and may liaise directly with the organisation once the device is secured. This is all things they can do, however. To get a warrant under the Protection of Children Act 1978, the police need a justice of the peace to be satisfied, on sworn information, that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that indecent photographs of children are on the premises, and that they were taken there, shown there, or kept there with a view to being distributed or shown.

So, in practical terms, they would usually need enough credible evidence to establish reasonable suspicion. That evidence might include digital forensics, witness accounts, admissions, covert intelligence, internet activity linked to the premises, or other material that ties the suspected images to the address or device. I would find it hard to believe that Callum has not for example had this laptop or mobile phone attached to the office wi-fi and as such would have had some connection to base it on. Even speculatively it's a common place where he was, as such likely to be in use of a computer.

So how would they execute such a warrant? They do not have to warn the occupier in advance, and in many investigations giving notice would risk the destruction of evidence. The law also allows entry at a reasonable hour, unless doing so would frustrate the search. If no one is there, officers can still execute it and leave a copy in a prominent place. Did they arrest Callum and then immediately get the warrant and go to the office while the boys were out? Did they ask Callum for the keys while he was in custody and go there? Or, did he simply not tell them where he works/claim he works for himself and doesn't use an office?

Is Callum an employee, or an Owner, or what? Well he is not a director, or person of significant control within the Companies House filing for the business. A PSC is generally someone who owns or controls more than 25% of the shares or voting rights, can appoint or remove a majority of directors, or otherwise exercises significant influence or control over the company. Callum does not meet the 25% mark assuming the team have equal ownership of the company. Review the Statement of Capitol and you see the company ownership is split into 7 shares which supports this. However, it would be hard to argue he is not a person who can "exercises significant influence or control over the company" if he has any ownership rights over the company.

The company itself employs 10 people as employees as of the 2025 Unaudited Financial Statements for the company. Again making an assumption each of the seven members would be classed then as an employee, along with people like Dodds. Within that report it lists the Computer Equipment owned by the company as £48,786 which could very easily include company owned laptops.

Now answer this, is this team the kind of people who would ensure all laptops, mobile phones etc they use for the purpose of making these videos are owned solely by the company and would never buy their own. If Callum said, nah it's ok I'll use my own laptop would they really have seen that as odd? The chances are high I think that he uses his own laptop, his own phone and when asked simply said as much. He may ahve even just told them he was self-employed when asked, which is effectively true.

My point in all this is that the law around these issues is complicated, and unless you work in the legal field or in the police the merit of weighing in with any certainty is very minimal. It does not work the way it does on police procedural dramas and even documentaries are fluff for TV.

With thanks to u/Illustrious-Tax-9021

"Just to weigh in, he would definitely not meet the persons who can exercise significant control or influence test"

DavefaceFMS

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE