Geoffrey Dickens believed Parliament treated accusations of sex abuse lightly
because influential people were involved and were determined to keep it quiet
Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens, left, handed the dossier to Leon Brittan, who was the home secretary at the time
8:40AM BST 04 Jul 2014
To MPs and Westminster journalists in the early 1980s, the disclosure that a
dossier alleging an Establishment paedophile ring was presented to Leon
Brittan, then home secretary, comes as no surprise.
Its purveyor was the Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens, a former heavyweight boxer and
doughty investigator of what he believed to be a conspiracy to cover up sex
abuse of children perpetrated by people in high places.
He would have considered the apparent disappearance of the dossier as further confirmation of deliberate concealment.
He would have considered the apparent disappearance of the dossier as further confirmation of deliberate concealment.
Dickens, who died in 1995, became associated with the issue 14 years earlier
when the magazine Private Eye disclosed that a senior diplomat and MI6
operative, Sir Peter Hayman, had escaped prosecution over the discovery of
violent pornography on a London bus.
Furthermore, Hayman’s name had been withheld from a trial involving members of
the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
The MP tabled a question to the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, naming
Hayman under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. In his reply, Havers
confirmed that after a packet containing obscene literature and written
material was found on a bus, the police uncovered “correspondence of an
obscene nature” between Hayman and several other persons.
A total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP decided not to prefer charges.
A total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The DPP decided not to prefer charges.
Havers also denied there had been a deliberate decision to withhold the
diplomat’s name from a trial involving leaders of PIE accused of conspiracy
to corrupt public morals.
“Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.”
In fact, Hayman was referred to by the name of Henderson. To Dickens this was evidence of a deliberate cover-up by the prosecutors and he proposed to take the matter further. He called a news conference at Westminster but was told on its eve that a newspaper was about to publish a story that he was having an affair. His mistress attended the news conference, where Dickens confessed to “a skeleton in my own cupboard” and a predilection for afternoon tea dances. His paedophile campaign ran into the buffers of derision from the press and hostility from fellow parliamentarians, some of whom denounced his use of parliamentary privilege to name Hayman and accused him of grandstanding.
It is hard to imagine today, as celebrities from that era are brought before the courts for historic sex offences, that this matter was treated so lightly by Parliament. Dickens believed this was because influential people were involved in the abuse and were determined to shut him up.
In reality, it stemmed more from a startling indifference to what was then called “kiddy fiddling”. It was as though because it had always gone on, it was not something to get too worked up about.
For his part, Dickens simply could not understand how an organisation such as PIE was allowed to exist. He wrote to Margaret Thatcher asking for it to be banned and in November 1983 he handed a “massive dossier of evidence” to Leon (now Lord) Brittan, to press the case further. After a 30-minute meeting, Dickens claimed the home secretary “told me he would investigate all the cases in my file”.
A few months later he produced further material alleging abuse in a children’s home, which the Home Office now says is missing, presumed lost or destroyed. Lord Brittan initially could not recollect the dossier but this week said he handed it to officials and proper action was taken.
What that was exactly is unclear; and certainly at the time, the home secretary decided against a ban on PIE and instead outlined a “three-step approach”: asking chief constables to report to him, urging the DPP to “consider” prosecuting PIE members and warning parents to keep a close eye on their children.
This prompted criticism in the press. One editorial said: “Wait and see is not a policy – it is an excuse. Mr Brittan should respond … with a blast of rage”.
Frustrated, Dickens brought a Bill before Parliament “to make it an offence to be a member of any organisation, association, society, religious sect, club or the like that holds meetings at which support is given to encourage, condone, corrupt or entice adults to have sexual relationships with children.”
He added: “Adults in every walk of life are to be found involving themselves in paedophilia. They range from some of the highest in the land to misfits.”
He pointed out that when Hayman was subsequently convicted of gross indecency in a public lavatory “there was a conspicuous silence in the House”.
When he asked Mrs Thatcher whether the convicted spy Geoffrey Prime had been involved in child abuse, she replied: “I understand that stories that the police found documents in Prime’s house or garage indicating that he was a member of PIE are without foundation.”
But this was not true. At his trial, mostly held in secret, it was disclosed that Prime had indeed been detected as a spy through child offences and was a member of PIE.
Dickens added: “I know exactly what I am up against, for I know that within the Establishment there are those who would not wish to see a change in the law.”
In the Commons in 1985, he said: “The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the floor of the House … [and] as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer’s hit list.”
Dickens was convinced his house was burgled by MI5 but this was dismissed as the delusions of a frustrated conspiracy theorist. At this time Westminster was rife with rumours about the involvement of senior politicians in sex abuse. They included the Rochdale Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, whose name was often associated with such stories.
Other MPs were suspected, among them Margaret Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary Sir Peter Morrison, who has been linked to allegations of child abuse at homes in North Wales.
At one point during the 1980s, the scandal threatened to engulf the Home Office but newspapers were warned off pursuing unsubstantiated rumours.
As for Dickens, he would probably look at the climate today and wonder whether the justice currently being dealt out against some of the country’s most famous figures will finally extend to some of its most powerful as well.
Source
“Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.”
In fact, Hayman was referred to by the name of Henderson. To Dickens this was evidence of a deliberate cover-up by the prosecutors and he proposed to take the matter further. He called a news conference at Westminster but was told on its eve that a newspaper was about to publish a story that he was having an affair. His mistress attended the news conference, where Dickens confessed to “a skeleton in my own cupboard” and a predilection for afternoon tea dances. His paedophile campaign ran into the buffers of derision from the press and hostility from fellow parliamentarians, some of whom denounced his use of parliamentary privilege to name Hayman and accused him of grandstanding.
It is hard to imagine today, as celebrities from that era are brought before the courts for historic sex offences, that this matter was treated so lightly by Parliament. Dickens believed this was because influential people were involved in the abuse and were determined to shut him up.
In reality, it stemmed more from a startling indifference to what was then called “kiddy fiddling”. It was as though because it had always gone on, it was not something to get too worked up about.
For his part, Dickens simply could not understand how an organisation such as PIE was allowed to exist. He wrote to Margaret Thatcher asking for it to be banned and in November 1983 he handed a “massive dossier of evidence” to Leon (now Lord) Brittan, to press the case further. After a 30-minute meeting, Dickens claimed the home secretary “told me he would investigate all the cases in my file”.
A few months later he produced further material alleging abuse in a children’s home, which the Home Office now says is missing, presumed lost or destroyed. Lord Brittan initially could not recollect the dossier but this week said he handed it to officials and proper action was taken.
What that was exactly is unclear; and certainly at the time, the home secretary decided against a ban on PIE and instead outlined a “three-step approach”: asking chief constables to report to him, urging the DPP to “consider” prosecuting PIE members and warning parents to keep a close eye on their children.
This prompted criticism in the press. One editorial said: “Wait and see is not a policy – it is an excuse. Mr Brittan should respond … with a blast of rage”.
Frustrated, Dickens brought a Bill before Parliament “to make it an offence to be a member of any organisation, association, society, religious sect, club or the like that holds meetings at which support is given to encourage, condone, corrupt or entice adults to have sexual relationships with children.”
He added: “Adults in every walk of life are to be found involving themselves in paedophilia. They range from some of the highest in the land to misfits.”
He pointed out that when Hayman was subsequently convicted of gross indecency in a public lavatory “there was a conspicuous silence in the House”.
When he asked Mrs Thatcher whether the convicted spy Geoffrey Prime had been involved in child abuse, she replied: “I understand that stories that the police found documents in Prime’s house or garage indicating that he was a member of PIE are without foundation.”
But this was not true. At his trial, mostly held in secret, it was disclosed that Prime had indeed been detected as a spy through child offences and was a member of PIE.
Dickens added: “I know exactly what I am up against, for I know that within the Establishment there are those who would not wish to see a change in the law.”
In the Commons in 1985, he said: “The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the floor of the House … [and] as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer’s hit list.”
Dickens was convinced his house was burgled by MI5 but this was dismissed as the delusions of a frustrated conspiracy theorist. At this time Westminster was rife with rumours about the involvement of senior politicians in sex abuse. They included the Rochdale Liberal MP Sir Cyril Smith, whose name was often associated with such stories.
Other MPs were suspected, among them Margaret Thatcher’s parliamentary private secretary Sir Peter Morrison, who has been linked to allegations of child abuse at homes in North Wales.
At one point during the 1980s, the scandal threatened to engulf the Home Office but newspapers were warned off pursuing unsubstantiated rumours.
As for Dickens, he would probably look at the climate today and wonder whether the justice currently being dealt out against some of the country’s most famous figures will finally extend to some of its most powerful as well.
Source
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.