Harvey Proctor To Give Press Conference

This Tuesday.

Harvey-Proctor

The former Tory MP Harvey Proctor will be interviewed for a second time on Monday by detectives from Operation Midland, in relation to an allegation of murder, The Independent on Sunday can reveal. He was interviewed in March following claims that he was present when underage boys were sexually abused and murdered at parties in Dolphin Square, in central London, and elsewhere. He has not been arrested.

The former MP, 68, vigorously denied the claims in an article he wrote for The IoS in May, saying he doubted the existence of any alleged sex ring in Westminster. In 1987 Proctor was convicted of gross indecency with underage males. He resigned from Parliament soon after, and has led an essentially private existence since then. He believes the 1987 conviction has led to his name being linked to current allegations.

In the IoS article, he denied ever having sexual relations with anyone under 16, and pointed out that the acts for which he was convicted would not be unlawful if committed today. He said he had never attended sex parties at Dolphin Square or with MPs, and had not murdered anyone. “Everything I have done has been consensual”, he wrote, expressing shock that anyone might think otherwise. He has demanded that any evidence against him be produced, or his name cleared.

The Independent

Advertisements

30 Comments

Filed under Abuse, News, Politics

30 responses to “Harvey Proctor To Give Press Conference

  1. Anon

    “In the IoS article, he denied ever having sexual relations with anyone under 16, and pointed out that the acts for which he was convicted would not be unlawful if committed today”.

    Will that be the argument politicians will use when they inenvitably bring down the uniform age of consent to 13?

    • John Derbyshire

      That’s why they lowered it to 16, if they try to lower it to 13 they will sign their own political death warrants. I suspect they may try for 15, but with paedophilia been brought into focus in the last three years, it be a very unwise move and even the gay movement might think twice about such a move.

      • Gay men have historically supported the principle of the State’s vested interest in regulating age of consent. Pederasts, however, have historically lobbied for full libertarian de-regulation of sexual activity period – which is clearly insanity. In the UK, for a long time you had legislation that made sodomy between a heterosexual couple legal at a lower age than for a homosexual couple. That was clearly discriminatory and had to be corrected. But so long as there is equality under the law, I’d be surprised to see Gay activists in the UK lobbying for a lower consent.

        Where I am, the “universal” age was 14 for most of my life. Over the last decade, it has been adjusted up to 18 – but with dispensation for persons within two years of each other, i.e., 17 with 15 is legal, 17 with 13 is not. I believe the ‘floor’ to this is 12, below that age sexual contact by anyone above that age is illegal. This is quite rational and largely supported by the Gay community.

    • No he’s not. A NOTW hack mentions it in the context of a story that they didn’t run.

      Did you bother to watch it before posting up the link ?

  2. The so called ‘Murder’, must be of an ‘unknown person’.

    • “The so called ‘Murder’, must be of an ‘unknown person’.” Perhaps.
      It’s not hard to figure out a known, but never found, person that some folks have suspected Proctor of murdering for a long time, though.
      This press conference could be extremely revealing, potentially we could learn more about the accusers and the details of what they have actually alleged, than has been released so far.

      • No, they have virtually ruled out that, as they know who abducted that boy, and who was involved, and those people have not been investigated.

  3. nuggy

    having a previous conviction makes proctor an easy target for accusations.and also his known in bondage..

    .

    • There’s a big difference between role playing and sadistic abuse. If there weren’t then everyone who bought fur lined handcuffs after reading ‘Fifty shades’ would be a suspect. Role playing almost by its definition has accepted boundaries, abuse does not.

    • This started off as a case of possible, ‘double mistaken identity’.
      Both of the victim, and of the abuser.
      There are two possible boys, one at first identified, then thought to be a ‘possible’ mistaken identity. Then you have ‘two’, tall blonde men, one 6′-6″ tall, one 6′ tall.

  4. What intriguing responses to my comment. Are you able to say more, Andrew1 or Andrew2 – ?

    • A boy identified a man, and a boy. However the boy he identified was abducted by ‘another’, tall blonde man, with a moustache, not the one he identified as murdereing the boy. So if it was a different man he saw, it might be a different boy he saw as well. So now it has to be an ‘unidentified boy’ that he saw. I hope that makes it clear.

      You cannot seperate the abduction, from the murder? Otherwise the man charged with murder would want the abductor to be investigated as well?

      But the abductor knows the names of others at the murder meetings, so he cannot be questioned without exposing the whole Westminster paediphile Group, High Court Judges and all?

  5. Jack

    Why is everyone speaking in riddles ?

    • dpack

      ongoing investigations ,libel laws and not wishing to chuck nasturtiums in the wrong directions might be 3 reasons for being a little obscure.
      as to what mr proctor has to say i await his words with interest ,especially any he might say regarding his understanding of the origins of his current troubles.

  6. nuggy

    im in 2 minds about this.really.

    1 there does seem to be some evedence albe it not strong to back some of acusations up.

    2 but having said with his past he is a very target for a false accuser.

  7. Isn’t it unlawful to buy sex from prostitutes aged under 18? Why is he then claiming he wouldn’t be prosecuted for it today?

  8. nuggy

    he was convicted of of sex acts of young men under the age of 21 that was the gay age of consent at the time there actually ages were 19 and 20 i beehive he always mantianed he did not know they were under 21 wich was a defence open to heterosexuals but not gay men for some reason even though its much harder to tell weather someone is under 21 than under 16..

  9. nuggy

    im not sure i believe he dident know but that’s what he claimed and i cant prove otherwise.

    • All the photo’s of the period show Harvey as being ‘effete’, not ‘well-built’. Shows him with a distinct parting in his hair, and hair going down the back of his neck, over his collar. It aso shows him always wearing suits, and not one photo of him with a moustache.

  10. paul

    new magazine article on dolphin square,peter hayman etc