The Empire Strikes Back

“Angry Americans” ??

22nd August 1983 – Press Council upholds complaint against The Sun by Sir Michael Havers re Geoffrey Prime and PIE

Press Council rulings

The Sun produced no evi-dence for its allegation that at the trial of the spy, Geoffrey Prime, the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, held back mention of the accused man’s involvement with a child-sex organization to avoid embarrassing security chiefs, the council said in another ruling. The council upheld Sir Michael’s complaint that the editor refused to withdraw the false allegation and declared that the editor should either have substantiated it or have withdrawn it. The adjudication said in part: The Sun, has failed to produce any evidence at all that the Attorney General held back at the trial mention of a link between Mr Prime and the Paedophile Information Exchange to save embarrassing Britain’s security chiefs, or that angry Americans were convinced that he had done that. The published suggestion that they were so convinced was a serious and damaging one. The editor should either have substantiated it or withdrawn it. The complaint against The Sun is up held.


Filed under Abuse, News

2 responses to “The Empire Strikes Back


    Reference: T8810/14 24 July 2014

    Dear Mr Hurley,

    Thank you for your email of 1 July to the Home Secretary and others regarding an overarching inquiry into child sexual abuse. Your email has been forwarded to the Safeguarding and Vulnerable People Unit to respond.

    The Government is committed to tackling child sexual abuse and is very aware of the serious and often long-lasting effects of these terrible crimes on victims. We are clear that if a person has suffered sexual abuse, however long ago, and they go to the police about what they have been through, then we expect the police to do everything in their power to help those victims, and everything possible to investigate the complaint.

    On 7 July the Home Secretary announced an inquiry panel into child sexual abuse. This inquiry will consist of a panel of experts and will consider whether public bodies, and other non-state institutions, have taken seriously their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse. The inquiry will consider all the information from the various published reviews and identify any issues or allegations requiring new or further investigation. It will advise on any further action needed to address any gaps or failings within our current child protection systems on the basis of the findings and learning from these reviews.

    It will be a wide inquiry and will look not just at state institutions but at other bodies to see whether they have been protecting children appropriately. The inquiry panel will have access to all the Government papers, reviews and reports that it needs and will be free to call witnesses from organisations in the public and private sectors, and in wider civil society. The terms of reference will be published when they are agreed, and a progress report will be made to Parliament before the General Election. The Home Secretary has been clear that, if the Chairman concludes that formal inquiry powers are required, we will ensure the inquiry is converted to formal inquiry status.

    In terms of lessons learnt, and as the Home Secretary stated in the House of Commons, the National Group that Norman Baker, the Minister of State for Crime Prevention, is leading has already brought forward proposals on how the police and prosecutors could better handle these matters and it will continue with its work. That will feed into the work of the wider inquiry panel. As you will appreciate from the Home Secretary’s statement, the Government feels it is right to set this review up as an inquiry panel so that it can begin its work without jeopardising the criminal investigations taking place. It will look at what, if any, gaps there might be in our current work that mean we are not properly protecting children and, if there are any, what appropriate mechanisms could be put in place to ensure that those gaps are filled.

    Thank you for writing about this very important issue.

    Yours sincerely,

    Safeguarding and Vulnerable People Unit


  2. dpack

    the nature of his information stream to the soviets included some of the sigint and submarine tracking capabilities of the usa/gchq so i would think the nsa,cia,and us navy might be among the “angry americans” especially if his motives were not ideological as officially stated but that he was blackmailed re his taste for young girls(and paid cash probably to have more evidence to blackmail him with as he didnt seem to need or spend it)by the soviets.
    the “angry americans “would be especially angry if his tastes were known to “vetting” ,ie the british knew a lot about pie and it’s members.

    his defence barrister was carman who crops up in a few interesting cases