On occasions reading the online discussion regarding VIP paedophilia over the last 3 years has been a bit like watching the famous scene from Monty Python’s Holy Grail (video below). I particularly remember how Eric Sykes was once accused of being a child abuser because he’d once worn a tartan hat which was similar to one worn by an unknown person in a photograph of the crew of Ted Heath’s yacht Morning Cloud.
What has astonished me this last week is seeing stories in the media, many of which have appeared in the very newspapers that have published rather dubious allegations themselves over the last 3 years, using the same kind of flawed logic to suggest that some people have been falsely accused of child abuse and then attempting to clear them.
Am I the only one that sees similarities between the Mail reporting that Tom Watson’s mother’s second husband’s brother is a convicted paedophile, and Exaro reporting that Daniel Foggo had once lived in the same road as Sir Peter Morrison, a report that the Daily Mail quite rightly described as a “smear” ?
The same Daily Mail article (HERE) goes on to describe Sir Peter Morrison as someone “plagued by gossip about his sex life” as though Morrison has been falsely accused in the same way as Paul Gambaccini has been. Sir Peter Morrison, once described by Edwina Currie as “a known pederast”, was a child abuser who was protected. This will all come out in time. Will the press be prepared for the same type of backlash that Exaro are now facing when those they appear to be attempting to exonerate without being in full possession of the facts are shown to have sexually abused children ?
Similarly, that one or more individuals might have made false allegations against Leon Brittan does not mean that Leon Brittan did not have an unhealthy sexual interest in children which he acted on.
All I can say to those media outlets who are making this assumption is that they are far braver than myself by taking this position. A position which might yet be shown to be untrue and then what ? How will the public judge the stories that are attempting to clear him ?
I can always remember discussing this issue with a senior police officer who was familiar with all the various allegations against Leon Brittan. “80% of the allegations against him are untrue”, he told me, “but the other 20% lead me to believe that Leon Brittan did have an unhealthy sexual interest in children.”
Even if all 3 of the allegations against Leon Brittan that were looked at by Panorama turn out to be false, and not just the one made by their witness ‘David’, that statement still isn’t contradicted.
Still, this seems to be the media’s direction of travel at this time. as I’ve said, they are far braver than me…
theneedleblog 
Goldsmith told to quit London mayor race over abuse ‘smears’: Tory candidate refuses to withdraw discredited claims linked to Brittan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3273212/Goldsmith-told-quit-London-mayor-race-abuse-smears-Tory-candidate-refuses-withdraw-discredited-claims-linked-Brittan.html
Pingback: Charlotte gets the wrong end of the Needle | HOAXTEAD RESEARCH
Sorry, Saber – I really thought you were having me on, so I went back to gojam’s opening about feeling like your living in the Python witch-hunter sketch:
“How do you know she is a witch?”
“She looks like one!”
“Did YOU dress her up like this?”
“NO! No, no, no…” * pause* “YES! Yes, yes yes…”
And who dressed up Leon Brittan as a pederast, originally? I’m convinced that PIE had the most to gain, and therefore the best motivation.
So your answer to cui bono ? Is PIE. The right honourable gentlemen having been calculated to be a clear and present danger to PIE must be neutralised, smear Brittan as a paedophile (we’ll forget that being a paedophile wouldn’t be a smear from PIE’s point of view) and risk a harder line backlash from the Government, police and security service in retaliation for PIE’s attempted manipulation. Who’s having who on Justin?
Justin,
That is one of several explanations that fit the known facts. It is certainly the case that Brittan as Home Secretary acted against PIE in what seems, on the face of it, to have been an appropriate fashion. One explanation for the claims/(smears?) about Brittan is that it was people associated with PIE that circulated them. Another is that Paul Foot was on the right track with his theory about right wing elements within the intelligence services being the source. A third is that Brittan was engaged in a complicated and high stakes gambit, ensuring that he was seen in public to act against PIE, while letting some of them off the hook .Yet another is that Brittan was sympathetic to PIE in some respects but disagreed with their strategy of campaigning for paedophile rights in a more or less transparent fashion and had no compunction in acting against them.
@David – I said, the Private Eye article exonerated Brittan of the boy-lover rules, NOT the documets you are referring to. I will quote from the pdf file I posted a link to, for the nature of those documents:
“loose documents – 27 June 1984 to 18 July 1984 – correspondence with Harry Cohen MP about Leon Brittan”
boy-lover RUMORS, sorry
Here’s the source for the letters from Cohen;
Click to access Peter_Wanless_-_Richard_Whittam_supplementary.pdf
All over the internet, Leon Brittan has been grossly misrepresented as being “soft on PIE” or even pro-PIE. I can only conclude that this is a result of failing to properly research the subject, and rather, simply repeating other people’s falsehoods, or deliberately spinning the facts to support some personal agenda. Let’s look at some of the myths about Brittan & PIE:
1) Leon Brittan “refused to ban PIE” – this myth mis-characterizes Brittan as “protecting” PIE by ignoring calls to ban the organization, because he was either secretly a member himself or simply pro-pedophile.
This Daily Star article from 1983 states that: “Margaret Thatcher and Home Secretary Leon Brittan WANT to outlaw the PIE”. It goes on to say that Home Office legal experts warned Brittan that there was at that time no legal basis under which this could be done, and new legislation would have to be inacted specifically for that purpose (which would, obviously, be a laborious process that could take years to accomplish). They also pointed out to Brittan, that even if membership in PIE could be criminalized, its members could defeat his intentions by simply making a new organization under a different name (Child Sexuality Liberation Front – ?).
So, the truth is that Brittan did NOT block efforts to ban PIE, nor was he opposed to outlawing the group, in fact he was personally in favor of the idea. It was not done at that time, because legal experts didn’t think it could be done under existing law and would ultimately be ineffective as a strategy for dealing with organized pedophiles.
The UK government was already pursuing other strategies intended to put PIE out of business, at that time, and was particularly aggressive about this between 1979-1981 – when Leon Brittan as Minister of State at the Home Office. Several PIE members were prosecuted for crimes such as “conspiracy to commit gross indecency with a child”. PIE’s leadership was also prosecuted for conspiracy to corrupt public morals, (and as we know, O’Carrol was convicted under this). The reasoning behind this strategy was explained here:
2) Leon Brittan, as Home Secretary, covered-up for VIP child abusers and prevented their prosecution by deliberately “losing” a dossier on suspected pedophiles given to him by Dickens, immediately after he received it, so no one else would ever know who was named in it.
This myth contains a kernel of truth – Dickens did give Brittan such a file. In fact, Dickens made 3 submissions – one to the DPP and two to Brittan’s office. However, the “big eight” names were selected out of a larger list which is known as Dossier 3 – submitted to Brittan’s office.
Dossier 2, compiled by Dickens and his wife from letters he received from members of the public, would have been a compilation of gossip and rumor primarily naming persons known to be or suspected of being gay (and therefore, they must be pedophiles!) by Dicken’s core constituency of right-wing homophobes. Being mere hearsay, it would have had zero evidentiary value and Brittan’s staffers no doubt would have spotted that immediately. It may very well have been trashed- because Brittan already had THE REAL THING, a full report on PIE members and their activities compiled over 2 years by Scotland Yard. The DPP also had a copy of this report from The Yard.
What about dossier 3, the file allegedly containing names of VIPs submitted separately to the DPP? In August of 1983, The Daily Mail reported that Scotland Yard was aware that a fraudulent list of names alleged to be pedophiles, including MPs and other celebrities, was being circulated:
This list is Dickens dossier 3. How did Scotland Yard know this list was fraudulent? Because they had seen it, twice before.
It is the same list as the supposed list of celebrity guest visitors to EGH supposedly compiled by two young police officers working undercover there: https://spotlightonabuse.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/dexp_1982_08_07_001security_1detail2.jpg
And it is the same list, the same “dossier” that police informant David Archer provided, and police attempted to investigate, as the basis of Playland investigation 2 in 1975. Confusion abounds, about this, because of a misquote in one of the news articles about the Playland cases. David Archer and Basil Andrew-Cohen were prosecuted, along with others, for sexual offences against boys in Playland 1, 1972. Both men were prosecuted again, along with others, in Playland 2, 1975.
From Cathy Fox blog:
“A day before the sentencing [Playland 2] Peter Earle wrote in the News of the World that “Dozens of arrests are expected after the Director of Public Prosecutions [Sir Norman Skelhorn] has acted on a detailed dossier on illegal homosexual activities. Some of the men involved are celebrated in show business, others are top names in the financial world. The arrests will come in the wake of a vice trial at the Old Bailey”
One of the men involved told Peter Earle that he wanted to co-operate with the police because he resented the way “some very big names” were taking advantage of young boys. Peter Earle himself went with the informant to Commander David Helm, head of the West End Central police force. Watch was kept on Playland. And a network of vice was uncovered over a vast investigation over 18 months ago”.
“One of the men involved”, refers to David Archer – desperately attempting to save himself from a second jail term by turning informant and providing police with a fraudulent, bogus list of high-powered boy-lover pedophiles. That is why nothing came of the “dozens of expected arrests”.
Their convictions were successfully appealed due to errors made by the judge during his charge to the jury, and Archer was released in November of 1976. The Daily Mail article about this contains a confusing misquote. Archer is quoted as saying that he WOULD submit to police a dossier naming millionaires and titled and influential people involved in the Playland scandal, but he probably said, (or meant), that he HAD submitted such a dossier to police, years before, and he believed that a massive cover-up protected those people.
Brittan and his office didn’t need Dickens bogus dossiers, and by the end of 1984 the new leaders of PIE had been successfully prosecuted or fled the country, and PIE was officially disbanded. Far from protecting this pedophile conspiracy, Brittan had in fact over-seen its demise.
Why do none of these dossiers survive? Unreleased files relating to child abuse allegations do exist which name key Westminster figures.
Key Westminster figures from the 1970s and 1980s have been named in a series of Government child abuse documents. The Government has revealed that papers exist that relate to Margaret Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary ‘Sir Peter Morrison’, former Home Secretary ‘Leon Brittan’, former diplomat ‘Sir Peter Hayman’ and former minister ‘Sir William van Straubenzee’.
The contents of the papers have been shared with the police and will be passed to the Child Abuse Inquiry led by Justice Lowell Goddard.
Because we can’t have un cultured oiks uneducated in the classics and therefore lacking in historical perspective frowning on their betters who sought no more than to enhance the lives, experiences and education of the children they embraced. Decent chaps having attended proper schools thereby benefitting from a decent education would see the intrinsic philanthropy don’t you know old chap.
Yes I realise that it was accepted culture in the prep-schools for masters to abuse boys. And later for the older boys to abuse the younger ones. When you grow up that sort of environment, I suppose it is hard to accept the real world where children are not used to being abused.
I read a book by an ex-public schoolboy, who had a position at an approved school, where mainly poor boys, who had been in trouble were sent. He said he tried to explain to the boys the many benefits of birching, and wanted them to submit to it. He may well have succeeded!
@david – you do understand that Brittan was involved in the government’s efforts to shut down PIE, from 1979-1981 as the Minister in charge of policing & justice and again in 1983-’84, as Home Secretary? That means, it is very likely that Leon Brittan’s name appeared in many government documents related to PIE, child sexual abuse, child sexual abuse images, etc., during those periods – but NOT as a suspect.
However, the specific documents you refer to, are letters received from Harry Cohen MP, presumably about the Private Eye article that he was not allowed to discuss in parliament itself – and which exonerated Brittan of the rumors about him. That Private Eye article suggested MI-whichever might be behind the Brittan boy-lover smears. That’s possible, and I can’t disprove it – but there is a much simpler, VERY OBVIOUS probable source of such smears. It is SO obvious, that its hard not to believe people are intentionally ignoring it.
PIE themselves, or other pedophiles/ child sex abusers.
Key Westminster figures from the 1970s and 1980s have been named in a series of Government child abuse documents.
After months of requests from Sky News the Government has revealed that papers exist that relate to Margaret Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and former minister Sir William van Straubenzee.
All four have passed away and the contents of the papers have not been revealed. Why have the contents not been revealed, if as you say, they clear Lion Brittan?
And how do you know what is in these documents?
I’m sure that I read somewhere that a police source told gojam that 80% of allegations against Brittan were false but the conclusion was that Brittan did have an ‘unhealthy interest’ in boys. If he did have such an interest any intervention that he may have made would have been hypocritical and self serving. NB if I have misrepresented you Gojam say the word and I’ll retract.
Well now, I have to assume that you’re pulling my leg here. :)
I posted documentation that under Leon Brittan’s watch, so to speak, PIE members were aggressively prosecuted and PIE ultimately collapsed as a result. And your response is – even if that is true, Brittan’s heart must not have been in it? Because a police source claims to have read Brittan’s mind and detected “an unhealthy interest in boys” in his thoughts?
You might as well say that Leon Brittan must have been a pedophile, because “he looks like one” – and he wouldn’t go around looking like one if he wasn’t one, would he?
You’re at it again Justin, I’ve never alluded to any mind reading. You on the other hand seem to be blessed with an intimate insight into Leon Brittan’s heart and mind.
longer than a long time imho.
Why a deserved downfall beckons for Tom Watson:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/oct/11/deserved-downfall-tom-watson-leon-brittan
Nick Cohen, Key Westminster figures from the 1970s and 1980s have been named in a series of Government ‘child abuse’ documents. Sir Peter Morrison, Leon Brittan, Sir Peter Hayman and Sir William van Straubenzee.
The contents of the papers have still not been revealed but have been shared with the police, (for murder inquiry), and will be passed to the Child Abuse Inquiry led by Justice Lowell Goddard.
http://news.sky.com/story/1523577/key-westminster-figures-in-child-abuse-papers
The Guardian along with all the other rags, sold their soul a long time ago!
re leon
several years ago,before i realized that archiving potentially important internet derived data was vital,i found what appeared to be the notes of one of a pair of panda car coppers from brighton.it seemed that they had stumbled across a young lad in a disheveled state in a suburban road in the early hours of the morning.they asked him what the problem was and he said some men had taken him to a house and started to undress him,at some point he escaped.
the police officers went to the house and found two men who they did not recognize ,shortly they were joined by man from another room who they did recognize,this man said something along the lines of “i will ring security and they will deal with this”.15 or 20 mins later 2 chaps in suits arrived and ordered the coppers to leave.they did.
this was the night before the alleged walk on the beach at dawn when hague is supposed to have told leon about his new role as an eu trade representative.
the copper’s internet post had gone a couple of days later when i told somebody and we realized the possible significance of it and we tried to find it again.
the internet post about the matter was written in “copper speak” and read like contemporary notes ,it seemed genuine to me.
i have no way of proving what i state here but since that time i consider leon a wrong un.
the only probable ways to discover the truth of the matter would either be a registry file about the matter or a very in depth and honest chat with hague.
there is another story about a distressed lad in brighton but that has significant differences from what i read.
it was about three years ago and the same week i found the contemporary local newspaper stories(which had recently been posted to the internet) about dickens giving leon a file of alleged csa offenders in high (and low) places,those online copies of contemporary press reports ,one of which i remember from the original time ,also vanished .
no amount of whitewash will convince me leon was a victim of a witch hunt but he never had chance to defend himself under oath and cross examination before a jury so i cant say for definite he was guilty of anything specific, although if mr solanki’s real statement (rather than the msm/exaro version) is as reported he was guilty of importing a small amount of obscene csa related moving images in the late 1980’s
i guess the gardeners have been weeding ever since folk started looking for weeds.
i wonder if whoever posted those copper’s notes still has them and could make them public again?
dpack, do you know about the PIE links to the Home Office and whether that would have involved Brittan? It sounds like there was funding to PIE over the Callaghan and Thatcher administrations and is it right that the PIE Chairman, Steven Smith(Freeman) and PIE treasurer, Barry Cutter had an office there, if so, who would have been responsible for employment, funding etc? Many thanks, you are a mine of knowledge!
ps What did he do with that missing Dossier?
i will ask if there are details available(pie studies is to the side of my research)
as far as im aware there was funding for pie from the home office at some point and on at least one occasion a membership list fell into the hands of the “authorities” (even if they did not have it from the beginning which seems plausible)
the link between henniker 8 and righton dating back to ( at the latest )1968 seems relevant to the question and is documented.
https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/pie-paedophile-information-exchange/
I saw a similar story ages ago. An aside in court a copper will be giving evidence at some point he will look towards the judge and say “may I refer to my notes …..?” The judge will look over his spectacles and enquire of the copper giving evidence ” …. is it a contemporaneous note … ?” The copper will invariably answer in the affirmative despite having written the note the next day in collusion with a couple of colleagues.
sir knox cunningham ,macmillan’s pps and good chum of blunt,mcgrath et al is a good example
there are a few musical sirs and at least one poetical sir from history with big question marks on their biography.
on the other hand sir norman john worthington was a good geezer
sir isnt necessarily a marker for easily blackmailed via vice but the honors and vetting committee have been either misinformed (ie sloppy) as a matter of course or party to some very bad calls.
Is ‘Sir’ code name for paedophile protected: Sir Jimmy Savile, Sir Peter Morrison, Sir Cyril Smith, Sir Rolf Harris, Sir Stewart Hall, Sir Peter Hayman, Sir Nicholas Fairbain, Sir William Straubenzee, Sir Anthony Blunt…….there must be countless more to add to that list, I guess it makes identification of abusers an easier task!
It’s like the establishment’s sick joke, to award honourable titles to these most vile of offenders and that’s even before discussing the House of Lords. The real heroes in our society are the Survivors and Whistleblowers who are bravely standing up for justice.
After months of requests from Sky News the Government has revealed that papers exist that relate to Margaret Thatcher’s former parliamentary secretary Sir Peter Morrison, former Home Secretary Leon Brittan, former diplomat Sir Peter Hayman and former minister Sir William van Straubenzee.
The contents of the papers have still not been revealed but have been shared with the police and will be passed to the Child Abuse Inquiry
http://news.sky.com/story/1523577/key-westminster-figures-in-child-abuse-papers
In the time that the Bishop Peter Ball is finally convicted and the cover-up exposed, they are crying conspiracy and lies.
No you are not the only one who see’s it, I do and I wonder how all of this is going to play out in the long run?
Trash a few allegations, thereby destroying an credible chance of the real crimes (and those persons involved) ever being brought to justice.
Will be the scenario the government (keeper of the establishment) prefer…
I would move out of the UK, but I suspect all of this type of abuse runs through every country and every organization, Just a case of to what extent?
Says a lot for humanity really, that we should be ashamed of how we treat (and have treated) the youngest and most vulnerable persons in our society.
Yes, I agree – these stories are a hostage to fortune.
But you get the feeling the press no longer care. They have abandoned any pretence of public service and are now quite happy to brazenly bat for the establishment.
Perhaps they feel it’s game over for the mainstream media. I’m increasingly believing so too.
The old saying about no smoke without fire is a pretty good one in general – and in Brittan’s case there seems too much smoke for there to be no fire, whether every allegation is true or not.
Well I am always a bit of a maverick when it comes to stepping up to the plate and shouting ‘foul’.
I was appalled at the ‘witch-hunter’ reference associated with Tom Watson (originally said by David Cameron on “This Morning” in response to Phillip Schofield who handed over a list of alleged paedophiles – not seen by the camera – but Schofield was fined £175,000 for that act).
David Cameron asked anyone – including Tom Watson – to bring these allegations forward to the police:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20251939
Anyway, I have lodged an IPSO complaint: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1snkooh?new_post=true
You will see that I have lodged the complaint because of the reference to:
(a) Peter Halliwell being Tom Watson’s Uncle (as GoJam has pointed out, Halliwell is the brother of the 2nd husband of Tom Watson’s mother)
(b) The reference to ‘witch finder’.
I know that dirty tricks are at play, I can only do what I think is right and defend those who I believe are honourable.
I have a ‘holding answer’ from IPSO and have forwarded to GoJam..The IPSO complaint meets compliance under ‘accuracy’ (so I, as a 3rd party complainant MUST be considered) But IPSO will let me know iif my complaint can be considered after they they have had the next meeting.
Indeed, Gojam.
What they’re really saying is that only official media-approved ‘witch-hunts’ are acceptable to them, they don’t want a bunch of plebs mouthing off on the internet, that wouldn’t be right.
The Daily Mail is particularly adept/notorious at the old “bait and switch”.
They aren’t far braver than you. They have huge budgets, they have their own agenda and most importantly they realise that stories have finite lifetimes. Cash for questions – been and gone. WMD – been and gone. Expenses scandal – been and gone. Bankster global rip off – been and gone. You could almost be forgiven for believing that Greece has recovered and the refugees have stopped visiting Europe.
The propaganda machine is in full Witch finder motion in the MSN, non stop villification of Tom Watson, tainted as “witch finder general”, yet his courage to stand up along with other Whistleblowers, has led to some clear evidence and convictions. Meanwhile, there are so many articles by contrast, trying to exonorate Leon Brittan, when, as you discuss all the evidence is yet to be tested.
It is so obvious we are being manipulated to believe a certain script, which along with all the other clear evidence, regarding, Peter Hayman/ Lord Armstrong, Peter Righton, the missing dossier and 114 files, D notices and closed files, to name just some examples, makes me even more suspicious that there is something to hide. I only know a fraction of what many commentators on here know and I am hopeful that, that knowledge is part of a broader awareness that is not being manipulated.
When I read Mark Hunt’s post earlier, I felt the complete opposite to him, I started out a sceptic, but after a similar three years of researching, it is impossible to dismiss the clear evidence that exists of important people, who have been abusers and who have been covered up for, this does not go away. Of course this evidence is mixed in with all the false claims etc, the stakes are high and disinformation is always part of that.
i could start with maundy gregory ,progress through the years via assorted very vips and assorted scumbags to the ex balkan soe crew ,angelton and others (perhaps more as exploiters than offenders)by the late 50’s then leading through henniker to cunningham blunt,mcgrath,mckeague,kincora ,gladio b,clockwork orange,monday club ,thatcher’s crew ,pie ,righton ,morrison smith savile et al ,the “care system”,and getting up to the present day with assorted ongoing stuff including tri x.
dont forget assorted side branches and multi decade links,cover ups and moiders along the way.
that is a short selective version,the fuller one runs to about 4 gig of data collated and interpreted so far.
a massive problem is an understatement.power ,money and vice are the common theme of a complex lattice spanning a century(one has to limit the field ) and a global stage.
add all the work other folk have been doing and the idea that recent events are a politically motivated “witch hunt” seem a rather lame defense.
im sure my research contains errors (many omissions) and misinterpretations but the overall impression i have is that if the truth was only a small part of what i think it is it would still be a huge and ugly truth.
tis no surprise the guilty and the beneficiaries of the guilty are desperately attempting to stuff the genie back in the bottle.
Far Braver than you.
Is that how you interpret what they are doing? The media for the most part have always been in cohorts with the establishment to keep this covered up. It is the opposite of bravery. Many in the media are very aware of Morriison, the investigations into the police cover ups etc, but they choose to ignore it as they do the establishmnet bidding.
Brave my arse. Cowards, and slime.
I hear Vaz might be questioning Watson. Given that Vaz has a ton of skeletons, makes me think that either Vaz is untouchable, ( and given the atacks in msm on VIP abuse it does seem like the fix is in) or he is so out of touch and thinks he is untouchable in his own mind.
I think the fix is in
Oh dear!
I generally assume that my regular readers are intelligent enough to divine what I’m saying…
Hi Tricia. I think he means that the Mail, Times, etc. are brave in their assumption of Brittan’s innocence, since such assumptions may in time be shown to be false.
But then, have they really said Brittan is innocent, and that he did not have an interest in small boys? Or have they just said that specific accusations made against him were false? Either way they will get away with it, of course, just as they get away with writing bollocks every day of the week. They answer to noone but their shareholders (and occasionally Ofcom). Can you imagine the editor of the Daily Mail subjecting himself to interogation on Newsnight over his paper’s journalistic standards (or any standards for that matter)?
No, I’m with you. I don’t think they are brave at all. They care little whether Brittan was an abuser or a saint, so long as they can exploit his story to sell newspapers.
the ss did not shoot the polish officers at katyn (the russians did)but they did commit numerous other war crimes.
at the risk of a godwin award the same principle applies to these matters.
as to trying to exonerate the likes of morrison that tactic can only discredit those that do
Government admitted that 114 secret files on paedophile cases have gone missing. That is why full access to MI5’s Secret Files, containing the names of offenders, must be given to the police. They might also reveal how reported crimes were not adequately investigated and on whose orders.