General Sir Hugh Beach Responds To Allegations

It seems that just as Harvey Proctor has claimed, the police assured General Sir Hugh Beach that he was not a suspect when they interviewed him.

I think at the very least the police should clear that up.

general_hugh beach

On Tuesday he held an extraordinary press conference in which he accused the Metropolitan Police of running a “homosexual witch hunt”.

But he also named other men who police were allegedly investigating, including three who had not been made public before.

The MP had also not contacted the individuals or their surviving families before naming them.

One of them was Sir Hugh, a former Master General of the Ordnance and former Deputy Commander in Chief of UK Land Forces.

In a statement, Sir Hugh, 92, said: “The police have confirmed that despite what has been reported in the press no allegation of any kind has been made against me.

“I am keen to give them every assistance and they have confirmed that I have been as helpful as possible in connection with their investigation.

“The police have interviewed me on one occasion but not in any sense as a suspect.”

His son, John, said: “’It’s extraordinary. My father is a 92-year-old gentleman and I don’t think he’s done anything wrong.

“I’ve never heard Harvey Proctor’s name in my father’s circle. They certainly weren’t mates.

“He was a very senior Army officer, a full General – anyone of that kind seems to be a target.”

Mr Proctor also named Sir Michael Hanley, who was Director General of MI5 from 1971 to 1978 and died in 2001.

In a statement on behalf of the family, his daughter Sarah said: “Until this morning we knew of no alleged investigation by the Met in to allegations against our father.

Our father was a decent, loving, principled family man. These are unfounded allegations from an anonymous source and, as such, have no effect on our father’s good name.”

The Telegraph


Filed under Abuse, News

57 responses to “General Sir Hugh Beach Responds To Allegations

    • Sabre

      IF the historic Establishment CSA scandal is ever dealt with in any depth at all Orchid/Dirty Dozen will be discovered to have had a not insignificant part in the whole affair. The manslaughter rather than murder charges in the Swift case have never been legally justified. Several people linked to the dirty dozen were ‘topped’ and when Cooke was released from jail the authorities went to great lengths to protect him until they could get him tucked away again. On the one hand we have public inquiries, ‘no stone will be left unturned and lessons will be learned’ and interminable police scoping exercises leading to yet more scoping exercises, on the other hand we have organised damage limitation exercises in operation ranging from the ‘conspiracy theories about conspiracy theories’ from the likes of anna raccoon to ‘lost documents’ and the possibility of deliberately setting up investigations or trials that are bound to fail. Let’s assume for the sake of argument that there has been no conspiracy to cover up ‘Establishment CSA’, individual Politicians, Judges, Staff Officers, Police Officers etc etc are human beings and a small proportion of these individuals like the rest of the population may well be psychopathic sex offenders, it would be just a matter of time before someone reported them or they got caught. They would then face charges a trial and punishment for the guilty, they would be suspended by their partys/regiments/departments as appropriate when charged and ditched on conviction. The wide ranging probes by the Government and Police are meant to convince us that all this is being taken seriously and the authorities mean to get to the bottom of things, however, The State and its agents and servants would be able to report by knocking off time on day one whether or not they have been deliberately covering up for and or setting up influential individuals. The habitués of the watering holes in the ‘street of shame’ could tell you over a very liquid lunch what they have learned from their ‘off the record sources’ over their many years of practice peddling propaganda in return for expense account funded chronic liver damage. No one knew a thing about Savile until one gauche individual announced that the emperor is stark bollock naked and then every bastard relates how they knew that Jimmy was a wrong’un and ‘I personally wouldn’t let him within a mile of my media project’. A dozen Police Forces investigating Heath? For fuck sake why? Heath was a privy councillor and Prime Minister of a Nation that is a member of Nato, The EC/EU, The five eyes intel community, The G8 or its then equivalent, hosts a global if not THE global financial centre of the world, is a nuclear power with a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, such an individual is NEVER alone, Wiltshire police would have had a constant eye on his home, Kent police would have had a constant eye on his constituency, States of Jersey would have maintained a hawk like vigil when he was over there and of course the dear old met SB charged with maintaining State security let alone security of the individual PM, Parliament and Downing Street would have been at the centre of everything. 5/6/SB liaison know all that there is to know of Jeremy Corbyn let alone Ted Heath. Why the probes? surely it is already known that he is innocent there shouldn’t be a need for a probe unless of course it is already known that he is far from innocent and much tidying up is to be done while assuaging an ever more cynical public.

  1. Sabre

    @Mark Hunt, unbelievable that they would let a witness live, why? We have someone who claims to be a witness and you don’t believe him, the witness account is incredible, providing the witness has no documents, tapes or videos and neglected to keep forensic samples (that would have been insignificant to the most sophisticated of us at the time) he poses no danger and is presumably available for further ‘sessions’.

    • tdf


      And yet he managed to keep a penknife for 30 years that was given to him as a memento by a person that was about to commit a dreadful act of violence upon him using said penknife (I’d rather not repeat the precise detail of it) but was fortuitously prevented from so doing by the former prime minister?

      Come on, it’s ludicrous what we’re being asked to believe here.

  2. dpack

    in another place a “tony blair “posted a couple of times in a way and on a subject that made me think it was probably the original.after a brief critique of tony blair’s works and a couple of potential charges for the icc i suggested there might be a nice cell next to milosovic while he waited for a trial date as being an international type with large resources he would be a flight risk if bailed.oddly he never posted again .

  3. Gordon Brown

    I agree with Nick.

    • Gordon you tosser, I told you never to post here again

      You got banned when you kept on trying to post all that ‘ saving the world’ stuff now get lost !

      • Gordon Brown


        • That’s it Gordon no more last chances for you. I’ve had enough of has-been former Prime Ministers coming here and thinking they own the place. Only the other day I told Tony Blair to stop milking it. Begging me to give his side on the Chilcott Inquiry. “Tony”, I said, “you’re a bloody murdering arsehole”, Did he deny it ? No! Just some spiel about being the son of God and feeling the hands of history scratching his arse. I’ve had enough. From now on it is the policy of The Needle that no former or current Prime Ministers are allowed to comment.

          You’re all banned!

  4. nuggy

    call me old-fashioned but when mass murder is alleged i like it the way actully have a body or 2 to prove it.

    if they start digging up body’s then i will believe it.

    • tdf


      Point taken, but there are quite a few unsolved missing boys cases from that era in the London area and surrounds, sadly. Mind you the evidence that they were done away with by a vast murdering paedo gang involving half the ‘great and the good’ of Britain is lacking at this point. More likely, they were probably victims of Sydney Cooke’s ring and/or random attackers. I know there have been allegations (or, more accurately, vague insinuations and rumours) that Cooke was in some way connected to certain VIP’s, but at this stage the evidence is lacking.

  5. I’m sorry Tricia but you’re getting hysterical.

    It’s not about giving up on supporting survivors.

    But for each case you have to take a position based on the plausibility of the claims.

    “Nick” has told the Police that testicles were only not removed by a pen knife (would have to be a bloody good one) because of the intervention of Edward Heath.

    Apart from the implication that people were murdered and bodies dumped, we have to believe that political opposites got together to murder kids.

    It’s one thing to form a paedophile network, quite another to murder and mutilate kids.

    I’m not saying it’s impossible, of course not.

    But what I am saying is, considering the severity of the accusations and what Nick allegedly witnessed, you have to ask and satisfactorily answer the simple question:

    How is Nick alive?

    Answer that and everyone will believe it.

    • Sabre

      Please BB, political opposites? really? The different parties aren’t opposites let alone factions within parties. The people’s commissar of Hackney (Diane Abbott) getting the Tory ‘sword of truth’ arms dealer front man (knocked up Khashoggi’s wife while he was at it) Aitken to be her son’s godfather.

    • Mark Hunt

      Spot on Bishop. Credibility is key to this whole issue. Liking or disliking Proctor is irrelevant.

    • ‘How do you know only Nick is alive? Given abuse of children by VIP’s has been covered up for decades, maybe they didn’t feel compelled to kill every child.

      As for HP and Heath being on different sides of the politicial spectrum, I think they were in the same club – MP’s.

      I don’t know if Nick is telling the truth. I also don’t know if Nick is working for another agenda. Same goes for HP. However, I do not know for decades powerful forces – spooks, police, politicians etc – have colluded to keep the lid on VIP abuse, and given that they are hardly going to sit back and do NOTHING as the wheels come off their cover ups.

      I was quite taken aback on how quickly you and others turned based on HP stage managed press conference. Believe how quickly you all turned was noted by those that are experts in smoke and mirrors and who very much want this investigation into VIP abuse to be buried.

  6. GMB

    The name Mr P mentioned that I found the most interesting was Leslie Alfred Goddard (late of Westminster City Council). I understand his address in ‘Victoria’ was never published or read out at the CCC unlike the addresses of his 11 co-defendants. That address remains a mystery for now. However I believe there is a High Court document of 1994 which may (fingers crossed) identify the property which was known to Op Orchid and others.

  7. nuggy

    why were the police giving procter the names of other people who were accused amusing they really did.

    and what’s he doing putting those names into the public domain not a very nice thing to do.

    • Mark Hunt

      Why the Police gave him the names is a very interesting question. They are duty bound to release their information responsibly. Proctor is not.

      The claim that Ted Heath intervened to stop Proctor hacking off Nick’s genitals is astounding and does surely help us form a view of how credible the accusations are. Again, I seek not to defend him but I think he has helped us by revealing some very specific details of the case.

      • pandapops

        Could you or maybe someone else who shares the same viewpoint maybe elaborate on how the castration claim “surely helps us form a view of how credible the accusations are”?

        Is it sheer squeamishness that makes it seem so incredulous to you? Or that it simply “seems” unrealistic? Or more Proctor’s stance that differing political beliefs mean it simply wouldn’t happen?

        Genuinely interested to know, as I’m aware of cases where the entire periphery of the abuse is made to sound and seem incredulous if told to somebody else. We’ve seen many methods; “It makes (insert deity name here) happy”, choreographing Alice in Wonderland trappings to the events, “parties and games”, satanic flim-flammery or simply the “Savile” effect, the very incredulity of the truth and that “you won’t be believed.” All seem far-fetched yet we know all have been used over the years in attempts to create an air if incredulity.

        Also the idea that political ideologies would prevent such occurrences seems bizarre; I’m not sure Sidney Cooke’s gang all voted the same way but I’m not entirely sure that the subset of the subset of the subset who appear to have partaken in these crimes were too bothered about the politics of the others. If, say, Janner and Brittan or Cyril Smith and Tory-supporting Savile can have overlooked such things, one would imagine two men from the same side of the house could do much the same.

        I’m not swayed either way as to the veracity of this or any other claim. Besides it’s hardly my place to decide what did or didn’t happen. I’m just interested in why many seem to find this allegation in particular to be the straw that broke the camel’s back, especially when considering the crimes of related groups such as Cooke’s, which do not differ substantially in extremity of violence to the allegations outlined by Proctor.

      • Mark Hunt

        We are talking about the heads of 5, 6, Cheif of the Defence Staff, an ex PM & a Home Secretary. They have the power to do pretty much whatever they want.

        The castration scenario itself is not the part I find unbelievable it’s the suggestion they would have been willing to allow a witness to live.

        The combination of characters, whilst not impossible, seems improbable.

        Ultimately none of us can know if it’s true or not but there comes a point where you have to decide on the balance of probability. I’m also concerned that this may be obfuscation.

  8. John

    Sir Michael Hanley – “his good name” ?! Obviously the realities of being head of MI5 were kept away from his little girl.

  9. Seriously, I can’t watch, If you took this from another source some context as to how these names came up would be fair and responsible thing to do.

    Also given how much space you have given to HP maybe you want to hive some space to what Nick has said in response. Seems odd you haven’t

    • I’d heard that Nick might be releasing a statement. If he does then I’ll make sure it is republished in full.

    • Mark Hunt

      Gojam has reported in depth on this issue and in much greater detail than any MSM source. I do not feel he has taken sides although, I’d feel it fair to allow him to take an editorial stance. It’s his blog. He seems up for reasonable challenge & the amount of comments posted in the last few days indicate a lot of his readers are giving the whole issue much thought.

      Surely that’s the point of such a blog. I’ve made it reasonably clear how I interpret the whole Nick/Proctor issue but I’m happy to admit I may be completely wrong & either way, I respect those who disagree.

      The MSM won’t let you comment on any of this. Gojam will & is therefore providing a valuable public service.

  10. tdf


    “Sociologist and writer Alisdare Hickson has inadvertently compiled the funniest book of the year. He wrote to 5,000 distinguished personages trawled from the pages of Debrett’s and Who’s Who, asking for their memories of homosexual encounters at public school”

    “General Sir Hugh Beach (who “has contributed chapters to several books on nuclear proliferation”) confesses “I masturbated with six other boys . . . homosexuality at Winchester did me no harm”.”

    • dpack

      i was rather taken aback by the 4th position that extract of a fairly obscure book had in a google search of the chap’s name when i was seeing who he was within minutes of his name being mentioned by mr proctor.
      it struck me as rather strange for such a detail to be so prominent .
      to paraphrase what i said yesterday ,well placed hint or well placed illusion?
      until yesterday i had not come across the chap in any context .

  11. Also, as tricia pointed out in another thread, please keep in mind that Harvey Proctor was able to frame the narrative in his press conference to make his accusers look ridiculous.

    With gratuitous references saying that the police should be investigating medieval murders (“Operation Plantagenet”), demands that everyone investigating him be fired, and his descriptions of the alleged crimes, he was able to portray the details of the investigation the way HE wanted to.

    And it might be difficult or impossible for the police to effectively refute Proctor’s portrayal, since the police have to protect the confidential information relating to the investigation.

    For more about this, please see my comment above, which describes how Harvey Proctor is cleverly trying to discredit the testimony of future accusers by putting all the details of Who, What, Where in the public domain. Thus, if any future victims come forward and talk to the police, Proctor can say “You weren’t there! You’re lying! You heard everything from news reports!”

    Proctor is quite clever, but it’s obvious that this is what he is trying to do with his extremely detailed press conference, and his otherwise inexplicable outing of the names of generals, intelligence chiefs and others who are alleged abusers.

    • “Framed the narrative” ? You mean that he read out the police disclosure document ?

      • dpack

        ay up mate have checked your email?

        with regards to the whole nick and harvey saga it does seem to be a bit strange the way it has been played out in the open rather than the normal practice of ,investigate and charge or dismiss the allegations especially the document stating names of for the other”co accused”.

        my instinct is that in this particular collection of issues harvey is a to unwilling or willing i cant decide.

    • It is apparent you are an observer, but “quiet”?

    • Mark Hunt

      As I undertood it, he read directly from a Police document. He has given us some interesting information which has not been denied by any official source. He strikes me as a worried man, unclear of what is happening. He does not appear to be in control of events.

      The way the Police have approached this case is curious.

      Making Nick aware of the house raid & allowing Exaro employees to be present during Nick’s interviews is not normal procedure.

  12. dpack, I have something for you.

    On the list of British Syrian Society officers, one person listed was James Felton Hervey-Bathurst.

    He is married to a niece of the current Duke of Rutland, who until recently, was Harvey Proctor’s employer.

    Maybe just a coincidence, but interesting nonetheless. is a useful resource for tracking the relationships between members of the establishment.

  13. Further to my above comment, Harvey Proctor is doing something very clever to try and discredit future victims/accusers who come forward.

    In his press conference, Proctor explained in detail the graphic details of the crimes he is alleged to have committed, along with the people alleged to be involved (Brittan, Heath, etc), and the places that these crimes allegedly occurred (Carlton Club, Heath’s house, etc).

    This was a very clever move, because if future accusers come forward with allegations, Proctor can claim “They’re lying! They got all those details about people, places, what happened, from news reports! They weren’t actually there!”

    Do you see what Proctor is trying to do?

    Before his press conference, if multiple accusers all contacted the police and separately described the crimes, the alleged perpetrators, the places the crimes occurred, then the victims’ evidence would corroborate the evidence of other victims.

    How else could you explain multiple people who had no contact with each other all describing the same events, alleged perpetrators, places, etc?

    That would give their testimony credence, since each accuser’s separate testimony, would corroborate the testimony of other accusers, if the details matched.

    But now, by putting all that information out in the public domain, Harvey Proctor can say “They heard about Heath’s house and the Carlton club and the strangling allegations and the knife allegation and the involvement of Brittan, Heath, etc from news reports. They weren’t actually there.”

    Again, do you see what Harvey Proctor is trying to do?

    By publicizing the details of the allegations, he is trying to discredit future accusers who come forward.

    This tactic is known to police, and victim’s advocates, like the people who comment on this blog, shouldn’t fall for it.

    In fact, Harvey Proctor may be guilty of trying to pervert the course of justice by PREEMPTIVELY revealing details of the allegations, so as to discredit future accusers.

    • chrisb

      A question I have posed before: who leaked the story of HP being interviewed by the police? Was it a copper in search of a backhander or was it HP himself? Your argument would be given strength, were it to have been HP.

      • Hi Chris,

        I know this question isn’t addressed to me but I think I can help.

        I think HP revealed that he was to be interviewed the first time, after the police had cancelled a couple of previous interviews he asked to be interviewed. This was after his home had been raided. He did not leak that his home had been raided and so his first interview was after his name had been put in the public domain following the raid. I hope that makes sense.

    • Fishy

      God bless you

    • Mark Hunt

      This is a possible scenario.

      Another possible scenario is that Proctor’s past crimes and the public’s perception of him make him the ideal patsy in a bolder move by, as yet, Unknown elements, to discredit the whole establishment CSA issue.

      I’m not seeking to defend HP, I don’t find him particularly likeable & as an old leftie, I’m not likely to agree with his general world view. As others have rightly commented, his previous actions have suggested he viewed himself as being above the law as it applies to Joe Public.

      In short, I believe he was telling the truth in his public statements despite the fact I’m not keen on him as an individual (& I’m keen to stress that’s not from any homophobic feelings).

      I’m just bemused that on the strength of one victim of abuse (with no apparent corroboration) the Police are seriously considering HP was part of a group of abusers including Heath (probably not guilty), Brittan (highly likely guilty), some murky spooks who I’d believe capable of anything & the ultimate bogeyman, Saville.

      We may well be being ‘McAplined’ again. Harv is a patsy in this process.

      That’s how I call it on what we know. I accept I may be wrong but I’d advise we keep an open mind and not be swayed by the possibility a man we do not like may be innocent & a darker game may be afoot.

      • Jack

        My thoughts exactly. Exaggerate the allegations which then get disproved and the baby is thrown out with the bath water. That is what is going on I believe. It is not without coincidence that the day after Cameron announced the Enquiry into establishment abuse, and Hague was retired, that a story appeared in the press claiming half the Tory party including some unlikely characters such as Rhodes Boyson , had been involved in cocaine fuelled orgies with rent boys. Hmmmmmmm

  14. I STRONGLY agree with Tricia’s comment on another thread:

    QUOTE: “I have not posted on here for a year, but I can not believe the comments on here. No wonder TPTB rule when they have muppets like you.

    I have no idea if Nick is telling the truth,but I do know the power of. word smithing, and making points without full context. HP put out this statement. We have no idea what is missing from the facts he [Harvey Proctor] choose to highlight, or what he choose to ‘highlight’ to give an impression. He has totally controlled the message and for legal reasons – on going police invetigation – done so knowing others with a understanding of context can not respond.

    No wonder Britain is such a messed up place. Thousand years of rule by a few and still the peasants at the smallest ripple turn. ”

    Some of the comments on here regarding the Harvey Proctor statement beggar belief.

    This is supposed to be a website that stands up for victim’s rights, yet it seems that all it takes is for one suspect (Proctor) to issue a strongly worded denial, and many of the so-called “victim’s advocates” turn tail and run.

    Denying their culpability is what almost ALL criminals do! Did you expect Harvey Proctor to stand up at his press conference and admit to raping, mutilating and murdering children?

    I think it is absolutely shameful how people commenting on this website, who should know better, are siding with the establishment, instead of with a victim who has bravely come forward and given information to the police.

    Yet even people on a victim’s advocacy blog ridicule Nick!

    It’s unbelievable!!!

    We have apologists for establishment abusers saying that Nick can’t be trusted and even agreeing with Harvey Proctor that Nick is lying!

    Yes, Bishop Brightly and Nuggy and Callie, I am talking about YOU. The three of you should be ashamed.

    Victims of VIP child abuse have been ignored, disbelieved, and mocked by the establishment for DECADES, yet when Nick comes forward and tries to bring the abusers to justice, instead of supporting him, the commenters on a victim’s advocacy website betray Nick and sell him out.

    The people who trust Harvey Proctor over Nick should hang have a word with themselves. What is wrong with you?

    Are you going to run away from holding to account the establishment abusers due to a press conference by an alleged abuser?

    Really? Seriously?

    For God’s sake, find some bottle, you people!

    Nick has 1,000 times more courage than the commenters here who are criticizing him from the comfort of their keyboards.

    Or maybe I’m wrong, and Nick can’t be trusted, and all the allegations of abuse are lies concocted by fantasists.

    Maybe Operation Midland/Fernbridge/Whistle/Pallial/Enamel should be immediately shut down, because there is no truth to the claims of abuse.

    Maybe the trial of the Lord recently charged with 22 counts of abuse should be cancelled, since obviously his accusers are all liars and fantasists.

    Can’t trust those plebs, you know, old boy, what what!

    It’s time for victims advocates to stand behind Nick.

    I don’t know if Nick is telling the truth, but SO FAR there is no reason to doubt him, and I am not going to change my opinion of him simply because of Prctor’s press conference.

    The police believe Nick, and so do I.

    It’s time for the commenters here who have disgracefully changed their tune and sided with Proctor to find enough courage to withstand a strongly worded press conference.

    • chrisb

      Double jeopardy is the legal principle that a defendant cannot be tried twice for the same crime. Something similar is happening with the cover-up of child sexual abuse. A serious accusation may be made and, when investigated, found to be false. This then acts to discredit a second accusation that is not identical but still close to the first – even though the second accusation is true. The closeness may be in the person accused or that the people accused belong to the same organisation or that they may be friends or relatives. Remember McAlpine.

      We should listen to ‘Nick’ and keep an open mind. That means seeking corroboration of his claims from other witnesses and victims. It also means accepting the possibility that he is playing a part in a strategy to protect the actual abusers by accusing people close to them. If innocent, HP is an obvious person to smear.

      We do not know if ‘The police believe Nick’. They may only feel obliged to investigate for fear of being accused of a cover-up. The police may like feeling the collars of politicians. Or their motives may be even lower: they simply prefer this work to whatever else they might be doing such as investigating burglaries on houses with odd numbers.

      • Very perceptive and insightful

      • Mark Hunt

        This is a very sensible and astute point of view to take.

        We know Proctor, we don’t know Nick.

        Forces may be at work who we are unaware of.

        The fact that Proctor had been found guilty of crimes in the past & is not, in my view, particularly likeable is irrelevant.

      • Jack

        I suspect that the more lurid claims of politicians and former prime ministers murdering kids are nonsense and designed to muddy the waters to discredit the real abuse that went on. To many people are prepared to believe any claim what so ever without hearing a shred of evidence.

      • Sabre

        Autrefoit Acquit is no more.

    • Fishy

      God bless you

  15. I think some clarity here would help. Are you saying that HP was told by the police that Nick named the above? Police named the above to HP? If neither then where did HP get this names from.

    Given he must be your new best friend, prehaps you can give him a call old chap:-)

  16. So, Proctor was talking utter bollocks was he then and giving false information?

  17. Nicky Bird

    Any views?

    My father’s friend Dwin Bramell has also been named. Is there some open season on senior army officers? Or are they woopsies?

    Nicholas A. Bird

    [edit: full contact details were provided.]


  18. Pingback: General Sir Hugh Beach Responds To Allegations | Alternative News Network