Peter Hayman: ‘Unnatural Sexual Proclivities’ File

peterhayman01
As Murun Buchstansangur has correctly pointed out, the most likely person referred to in the ‘Unnatural Sexual Proclivities’ File is paedophile Sir Peter Hayman.

Scanning the Sky News story we come up with a few identifying facts.

1) The person is described as  “former public” [figure/servant?] . Sir Peter Hayman was High Commissioner in Canada 1970–74 before officially retiring.

2) The file covers a time period between 1980 Oct 27 – 1981 Mar 20. These dates coincide with the first stories regarding Hayman in Private Eye.

3) There are “Security Aspects”. We’ve not been able to corroborate the suggestion that Hayman was Deputy Director of MI6 but there is no doubt that he was involved in British Intelligence. My best guess is that he was connected to British Intelligence through the Ministry of Defence (MoD) and not MI6.

I’d lay good money that this report is the consequence of the “full investigation” that Douglas Hurd referred to on 17th March 1981.

HC Deb 17 March 1981

Mr. Dickens

asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether, in view of the references to the conduct of a former senior civil servant of the Ministry of Defence in the case of Regina v Thomas O’Carroll and others, he will cause an investigation to be made of the extent to which a security risk occurred at the posts at which that official served.

Mr. Hurd

I have been asked to reply.

The security authorities have carried out a full investigation. This has revealed nothing to suggest that security has been prejudiced.

Hansard

Incidently, Douglas Hurd was a junior MoD minister at the time and not a Foreign Office minister as would likely be the case if the security implications related to MI6.

So, I’m fairly confident that this file refers to paedophile Sir Peter Hayman.

What is new is that we now know that the Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher was almost certainly personally briefed about Hayman as this file is marked with the ‘PREM’ prefix.

A secret Government file has been unearthed that documents “unnatural” sexual behaviour taking place when the Westminster paedophile scandal was at its height.

It has been kept under lock and key for 35 years on grounds of national security – but will now be released to the child abuse inquiry established by the Government.

Security and intelligence expert Dr Chris Murphy stumbled across it last November while searching documents at the National Archives in Kew.

He was immediately alerted by the title: “PREM19/588 – SECURITY. Allegations against former public [word missing] of unnatural sexual proclivities; security aspects 1980 Oct 27 – 1981 Mar 20.”

“I was looking through the ‘PREM’ Prime Minister file series for the 1980s,” the University of Salford lecturer told Sky News.

“I think I did a double-take and then started wondering what the potential implications of the title, which is a little vague, could be.”

It is highly likely then-Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher saw the documents, and was briefed on the security implications, but the identities of those within them remain secret.

Sky News

 

Advertisements

12 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

12 responses to “Peter Hayman: ‘Unnatural Sexual Proclivities’ File

  1. Pingback: Peter Hayman: ‘Unnatural Sexual Proclivities’ File | Alternative News Network

  2. Paul Mac

    Interesting…

    This link shows the National Archive catalogue of the record though the title is all that can be read http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C11918876
    Strange that the title has a word missing although ‘figure’ would be the likely word.

    Hurd’s comments seem to indicate there were not any security issues (that said, any leaks would probably be denied at first anyway). The dates of the file – 1980 Oct 27 – 1981 Mar 20 would I assume be the file document dates rather than the period in which the ‘unnatural sexual activities’ took place.

    Hayman looks very likely.

    So have they let a file slip through or is this deliberate? I’d imaging there’s a pretty robust control of what the NA reveal.

    Either way, it seems to confirm that Thatch knew a lot about it.

    Sky News are including a piece from Bernard Ingham in which he recalls asking asking a government minister about child abuse which is interesting as they seem to be suggesting a link. The archived file does not appear to refer to a minister as the title would surely read differently.

    Sky – ‘Mrs Thatcher’s former press secretary, Sir Bernard Ingham, told Sky News he could not recall the file.

    He did though confirm that both he and Mrs Thatcher were aware of allegations against a Government minister in the early 1980s.

    Sir Bernard would not name the individual, but said: “I asked him about it and he denied it, so no, I didn’t do anything else. What was the alternative?”

  3. Paul Mac

    I also wonder why this file was not found by or revealed to Peter Wanlass’s inquiry.

    The Telegraph & Express are also including the Bernard Ingham quote about a minister in the same story. Lazy journalism or do they know something ?

  4. dpack

    it seems plausible hayman was the subject and that his career included links to various aspects of spookery.(dd6 seems less plausible as there appears to be a direct line of inheritance that does not include him and his fo work at the relevant time makes it unlikely he would have both roles)

    the file could be “ready to be found” to confuse or to expose or imho it was simply overlooked by the gardeners,it is easy to miss the odd daisy in a big lawn.

    the prem designation does indicate that thatcher knew of the contents of this file and by implication the contents of similar ones.

  5. GMB

    Yorkshire…surely not sheep shagging!
    I’m ready for my makeup Mr De Jackson…

  6. dpack

    ingham’s comment re a “minister” and his “what else”excuse is interesting.
    any sensible chap in his position or a serving pm who was told of a ministers alleged misdeeds might be expected to use the full capabilities of the “bloodhounds”to seek out the truth of the matter so as to be able to take the necessary steps rather than accept a simple denial from the person involved. most would do this if not to protect the national interest to at least protect their party and their own interests should the allegations be correct and their enemies also became aware of the situation.

    to not “release the hounds” might indicate that they knew the truth but believed it could be hidden or it might indicate a reluctance to admit investigating a friend in such a manner (whatever the results of that investigation might have been).

  7. prawnpeach

    Is there a chance the missing word is plural rather than singular, eg public figures or public servants, and that the file refers to others as well as Hayman?

  8. littlenan

    What normal person would want to hide something like this? I can only imagine that they too must have something to hide or have sympathies with this monster’s way of life.