UK UK - Kevin Hicks, 16, Croydon, 2 March 1986

[THX]

I've seen that be said a plenty of times, and I understand why people may feel that way, but I personally don't think Kevin was gay at all. Obviously the attitudes were much different at times, and Croydon was quite a dangerous area, and it has been pointed out a lot of cruising went on in parks and nearby areas, but I don't think Kevin was involved in any of that. There's just no proof, and there never has been, or even anything to remotely suggest it.

It has been said Kevin was groomed, but it was just recently confirmed to me that the speakers were a gift from Kevin's parents. Although multiple things have been stated over the years, and I've seen multiple explanations, such as he bought them himself with his savings, someone bought them for him or gave him money as part of some grooming he was a victim of. (Which could be down to incorrect reporting, or misremembering)

As you said about the ruse of Kevin nipping out to perform sexual favours for money under the guise of buying eggs is, with no disrespect intended, a bit ridiculous. He was 16 years old, essentially still a child and he's often painted as both secretly gay and engaging in secret meetings for gay sex, and now as performing these sex acts for money. None of this has any evidence to support it, not at all, it's borderline victim blaming. Taking a missing child and jumping through a few hoops to paint him as a secret sex worker, it's also very disrespectful to both the victim and his remaining family.

As I've stated before, if he had told his family he'd be gone 5 minutes to buy some eggs, as he intended, presumably he would have had to have only been gone 5 minutes and come home with eggs. If he went out to do anything else, he would still have had to have been home within 5 minutes and come home with the box of eggs. Obviously something horrific must have happened to him along the way.

The problem with trying to say Kevin couldn't have been having sex because he was 16 I don't think is remotely realistic.

A) Plenty of 16 year olds over the years have done exactly that, and it certainly was not unusual whatsoever back then. The idea that many 16 year olds didn't / don't have sex is not remotely realistic. The age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. We know kids of 16 and below are often getting into trouble for sending each other sexualised pics, and sadly rape and sexual abuse committed by under 16s is not unusual. Underage pregnancies really spiked in the 1970s and 1980s, and the term 'gymslip mother' to describe them was widely used.

Indeed, teenage pregnancies were so common in the 1980s that they became part of the culture, and characters like Michelle Fowler in the likes of Eastenders were depicted as 16 year old mothers (with the father being the much, much older Den Watts), and groups like The Specials wrote hit pop songs about teenage pregnancies like 'Too Much Too Young', which got to #1 in the charts.

https://www.songfacts.com/facts/the-specials/too-much-too-young

This article below from 2008 talks about how the number of pregnancies in 15-18 year olds in the UK were the 'worst in Europe'

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Why such a downer on teenage pregnancy?

news.bbc.co.uk

Indeed, as of 2025, teenage pregnancies are up again, including in girls aged 16.

Teen pregnancies rise for the first time in 14 years

Gosport is one of the areas in England to have seen the largest increase in under-18 conceptions.

www.bbc.co.uk

There was an early 1980s documentary from the 'Arena' series on BBC iPlayer recently where the author Andrea Dunbar was interviewed. She herself had a baby at the age of 15. She was asked why so many underage girls got pregnant back then and she said 'because there was nothing else to do', which again gives an insight to that era. There really was absolutely nothing to do a lot of the time, and people ended up getting into trouble out of sheer boredom. If you didn't live through that era, it's impossible to comprehend.

I think we can therefore categorically say that it is not true whatsoever to say that 16 year olds do not have sex.

B) Who confirmed to you that the speakers were given to him by his parents? Because it's never been reported as such.

The bottom line is that we don't know for sure what Kevin was up to that night. We do however know that sex is often an issue in the disappearance of teenagers. The police have also said that they believed Kevin's trip out to the shops was a ruse. They would not have said that for no reason, and they have significantly more information that we do. We therefore need to explain why Kevin may have done that and, whether we like it or not, sex is a very real possibility.

 

[BrutishGoose32]

The problem with trying to say Kevin couldn't have been having sex because he was 16 I don't think is remotely realistic.

A) Plenty of 16 year olds over the years have done exactly that, and it certainly was not unusual whatsoever back then. The idea that many 16 year olds didn't / don't have sex is not remotely realistic. The age of sexual consent in the UK is 16. We know kids of 16 and below are often getting into trouble for sending each other sexualised pics, and sadly rape and sexual abuse committed by under 16s is not unusual. Underage pregnancies really spiked in the 1970s and 1980s, and the term 'gymslip mother' to describe them was widely used.

Indeed, teenage pregnancies were so common in the 1980s that they became part of the culture, and characters like Michelle Fowler in the likes of Eastenders were depicted as 16 year old mothers (with the father being the much, much older Den Watts), and groups like The Specials wrote hit pop songs about teenage pregnancies like 'Too Much Too Young', which got to #1 in the charts.

https://www.songfacts.com/facts/the-specials/too-much-too-young

This article below from 2008 talks about how the number of pregnancies in 15-18 year olds in the UK were the 'worst in Europe'

BBC NEWS | UK | Magazine | Why such a downer on teenage pregnancy?

news.bbc.co.uk

Indeed, as of 2025, teenage pregnancies are up again, including in girls aged 16.

Teen pregnancies rise for the first time in 14 years

Gosport is one of the areas in England to have seen the largest increase in under-18 conceptions.

www.bbc.co.uk

There was an early 1980s documentary from the 'Arena' series on BBC iPlayer recently where the author Andrea Dunbar was interviewed. She herself had a baby at the age of 15. She was asked why so many underage girls got pregnant back then and she said 'because there was nothing else to do', which again gives an insight to that era. There really was absolutely nothing to do a lot of the time, and people ended up getting into trouble out of sheer boredom. If you didn't live through that era, it's impossible to comprehend.

I think we can therefore categorically say that it is not true whatsoever to say that 16 year olds do not have sex.

B) Who confirmed to you that the speakers were given to him by his parents? Because it's never been reported as such.

The bottom line is that we don't know for sure what Kevin was up to that night. We do however know that sex is often an issue in the disappearance of teenagers. The police have also said that they believed Kevin's trip out to the shops was a ruse. They would not have said that for no reason, and they have significantly more information that we do. We therefore need to explain why Kevin may have done that and, whether we like it or not, sex is a very real possibility.

I don't want to sound too blunt here, as i think continued discussion of possibilities in Kevin's case is a good thing. But I'm not trying to say he couldn't have been, in some way either somewhat or fully sexually active.

What I disagree with, as I said before is the suggestion that he must've been a sex worker, or engaging in secretive meetings for gay sex. It's pure speculation, and usally someones opinion, and very disrespectful to both the victim and his family. I've never seen the same opinions come up regarding Lee Boxell, or Mark Garvey, or Reece Collins.

The problem i have with the police believing visiting the shop to buy eggs was jusy a ruse is that they don't know anything about what happened to Kevin, not really. I know it's been said that they must know more than they're letting on. But honestly, nothing new has been said since the night he went missing.

I agree it's a possibility sex was involved, but people treating it like it's a likelihood, and it must've been something Kevin was seeking, is what gets to me.

For what it's worth, I believe whatever happened to Kevin was sexually motivated, but only on the side of whoever was responsible, children don't really go missing for any other reason.

 

[TheRockingRev]

I've seen that be said a plenty of times, and I understand why people may feel that way, but I personally don't think Kevin was gay at all. Obviously the attitudes were much different at times, and Croydon was quite a dangerous area, and it has been pointed out a lot of cruising went on in parks and nearby areas, but I don't think Kevin was involved in any of that. There's just no proof, and there never has been, or even anything to remotely suggest it.

It has been said Kevin was groomed, but it was just recently confirmed to me that the speakers were a gift from Kevin's parents. Although multiple things have been stated over the years, and I've seen multiple explanations, such as he bought them himself with his savings, someone bought them for him or gave him money as part of some grooming he was a victim of. (Which could be down to incorrect reporting, or misremembering)

As you said about the ruse of Kevin nipping out to perform sexual favours for money under the guise of buying eggs is, with no disrespect intended, a bit ridiculous. He was 16 years old, essentially still a child and he's often painted as both secretly gay and engaging in secret meetings for gay sex, and now as performing these sex acts for money. None of this has any evidence to support it, not at all, it's borderline victim blaming. Taking a missing child and jumping through a few hoops to paint him as a secret sex worker, it's also very disrespectful to both the victim and his remaining family.

As I've stated before, if he had told his family he'd be gone 5 minutes to buy some eggs, as he intended, presumably he would have had to have only been gone 5 minutes and come home with eggs. If he went out to do anything else, he would still have had to have been home within 5 minutes and come home with the box of eggs. Obviously something horrific must have happened to him along the way.

As I tried to labour in my post as much as possible, this was just my opinion, based on things and people I know. No-one is victim blaming. It's just an avenue of possibility. As I've previously mentioned I know personally of 2 people who were living fairly normal lives as young men, but were happily taking money from other men for sexual cats in toilets in the West End of London in the 1980's. Now Kevin may not have been doing it for cash, but he may (or may not) have been engaged in homosexual activity - but again this is just my opinion. It was a different time - in an area like Croydon as well you daren't have revealed your true sexuality. But again this is just my opinion.

Because you see the reason for me coming to this possibility is because the big problem with all of this is that a 16 year old vanished off a street in a pretty residential area, and at a reasonable time in the evening. No shouts, no screams, no fighting back. It's said that Kevin could throw a punch (quote by his sister IIRC) so I can't believe anyone who had abducted him could've done so in such a quiet and unnoticed manner. Let's just say that someone pointed a gun at his head and took him off somewhere - the question then is why? Children have been snatched off the streets (you only have to look at the horrific cases from the 'Dirty Dozen' gang) but a 16 year old? That seems a bit far-fetched.

So my line of thought is that he was lured somewhere - but again how? This isn't 'Do you want some sweets?' territory. The only things I can think of is a sexual liaison , of which homosexuality seems most logical - although not the only option, or drugs. The reason I rule drugs out of the whole case is that it's usually more noticeable - mood swings, lack of money and paraphernalia. Yet none of these were reported.

As for having to be back in 5 minutes, he didn't have to be back in 5 minutes - 5 minutes is a general term. He could have used any excuse to come back later - saw a friend, had a walk, shop didn't have eggs so he went to another shop etc. He didn't even need to come back with eggs if he said the shop didn't have any. And has it been confirmed that he did need the eggs at school the next day?

Also where did you hear about the speakers? I've not heard that explanation before.

 

[BrutishGoose32]

As I tried to labour in my post as much as possible, this was just my opinion, based on things and people I know. No-one is victim blaming. It's just an avenue of possibility. As I've previously mentioned I know personally of 2 people who were living fairly normal lives as young men, but were happily taking money from other men for sexual cats in toilets in the West End of London in the 1980's. Now Kevin may not have been doing it for cash, but he may (or may not) have been engaged in homosexual activity - but again this is just my opinion. It was a different time - in an area like Croydon as well you daren't have revealed your true sexuality. But again this is just my opinion.

Because you see the reason for me coming to this possibility is because the big problem with all of this is that a 16 year old vanished off a street in a pretty residential area, and at a reasonable time in the evening. No shouts, no screams, no fighting back. It's said that Kevin could throw a punch (quote by his sister IIRC) so I can't believe anyone who had abducted him could've done so in such a quiet and unnoticed manner. Let's just say that someone pointed a gun at his head and took him off somewhere - the question then is why? Children have been snatched off the streets (you only have to look at the horrific cases from the 'Dirty Dozen' gang) but a 16 year old? That seems a bit far-fetched.

So my line of thought is that he was lured somewhere - but again how? This isn't 'Do you want some sweets?' territory. The only things I can think of is a sexual liaison , of which homosexuality seems most logical - although not the only option, or drugs. The reason I rule drugs out of the whole case is that it's usually more noticeable - mood swings, lack of money and paraphernalia. Yet none of these were reported.

As for having to be back in 5 minutes, he didn't have to be back in 5 minutes - 5 minutes is a general term. He could have used any excuse to come back later - saw a friend, had a walk, shop didn't have eggs so he went to another shop etc. He didn't even need to come back with eggs if he said the shop didn't have any. And has it been confirmed that he did need the eggs at school the next day?

Also where did you hear about the speakers? I've not heard that explanation before.

Of course I understand that, and I apologise if I came off as rude or blunt in my previous message. I should clarify that I don't rule out your opinion as a possibility, I just don't share the same opinion. Also I completely take in what you're saying about it being a different time and that a lot of unpleasant things were going on the area, I've read a bit about the Dirty Dozen gang, but tbh it's not pleasant reading at all, so I haven't gone too far into it.

I agree this isn't man in a black van "do you want to see some puppies" territory either. This makes me think of the reddit post about Reece Collins, and like you, I can only think Kevin was offered a lift somewhere or coerced somewhere, was it you who suggested someone could've approached him with "can you help me find my lost dog?", then again I don't think Kevin would've gone into a car with a stranger, he seemed bright. I wonder if the police went door to door on Kevin's street and checked up on who was living there, surely they must have.

My thinking with the "back in 5 minutes" thing is that if he'd said that and was gone ages he surely would've got the "Where've you been? You've been gone ages, I've been worried about you?" reaction from his parents, which would've brought attention to the fact it was a ruse. Just doesn't make sense to me. I've never seen it confirmed he needed eggs, I've even read somewhere that it was Eggs, Bananas and Chocolate, because he was also going to make a snack for his sister. I really can't believe it wasn't verified if he needed eggs, because surely if the police checked, they'd have released that information.

Lastly, sorry for not getting back to you about it but it was a page that I believe is ran by Alex herself that confirmed the speakers were a gift. I'd not heard that one either, until now.