John Mann MP leads this ‘debate’ on the Wanless Review and Dickens File in Westminster Hall, 4 November 2015. As can be seen, he speaks to a near empty room…
In Parliament Mr Mann described the Dickens dossier as “intriguing to say the least”.
He said that a former deputy director of MI6, George Kennedy Young, was involved in a right-wing Conservative group which gathered details on alleged paedophiles within the Commons.
Young, also known as ‘GK’ who died in 1990, was not named as a paedophile but Mr Mann described him as a “manipulator” who had been involved in “dubious” political activities, including a campaign to set up a private army.
“We need to know why the file disappeared,” Mr Mann said in a Westminster Hall debate.
42 responses to “John Mann MP On Wanless Review And Dickens File”
tinker tailor soldier blackmailer traitor nonce etc etc .
it is very hard to sort out who is who,the objectives of their operations,their motivations and their masters in the shadow world.
tis even more complex when examined in the broadest context.
attention to details and then applying cui bono and occam’s razor are perhaps the best tools to dismantle the tangled wreckage and establish the causes of the results.
ps the recent lurid allegations regarding heath are almost certainly false.
Pingback: Anthony Cavendish on Oldfield – Inside Intelligence | cathyfox blog
Pingback: Inside Intelligence by Anthony Cavendish | cathyfox blog
Pingback: George K Young – Foreword in “Inside Intelligence” by Anthony Cavendish | cathyfox blog
More about the alleged 1974 military coup plot:
Alleged 1974 military coup plot
On the BBC television programme The Plot Against Harold Wilson, broadcast on 16 March 2006 on BBC2, it was claimed there were threats of a coup d’état against the Wilson government, which was corroborated by leading figures of the time on both the left and the right. Wilson told two BBC journalists, Roger Courtiour and Barrie Penrose, who recorded the meetings on a cassette tape recorder, that he feared he was being undermined by MI5. The first time was in the late 1960s after the Wilson Government devalued the pound sterling but the threat faded after Conservative leader Edward Heath won the election of 1970. However, after a coal miners’ strike Heath decided to hold an election to renew his mandate to govern in February 1974 but lost narrowly to Wilson. There was again talk of a military coup, with rumours of Lord Mountbatten as head of an interregnal administration after Wilson had been deposed. In 1974 the Army occupied Heathrow Airport on the grounds of training for possible IRA terrorist action at the airport. However Baroness Falkender (a senior aide and close friend of Wilson) asserted that the operation was ordered as a practice-run for a military takeover or as a show of strength, as the government itself was not informed of such an exercise based around a key point in the nation’s transport infrastructure.
Pingback: ITN News: ‘Sir Maurice Oldfield Smear’ (21.11.86) | theneedleblog
gladio a = soe in waiting for the russians set up post ww2 (in the uk along the lines of the auxiliary reserve.) (global)
gladio b = set up 1960’s as above and with some continuity but also adapted to the strategy of tension in that a variety of activist and terrorist groups were infiltrated and/or created.
the details are too extensive and complexly interlinked for a brief overview here. (global)
gladio b in the uk it could be broadly described as the “troubles”, the “clockwork orange events” the rise of “thatcherism ” the far right/far left street fights etc but is far more complex than that and seems to include what blunt called ” a new project” which started around 1966 (just as it became obvious due to the 1967 legislation that blackmailing a gay chap in a powerful position was soon going to be a non starter and other sticks would be required).
the ultimate objective of all the various branches in europe (and elsewhere ,although in some places a weak state /war zone was seen as a greater advantage)seems to be to have been the creation of (non lefty,non pacifist or neutral )strong states that would support usa cold war tactics(potentially including fighting and winning a nuclear war in europe with minimal usa homeland casualties ,maybe fifty to a hundred million us citizens dead at worst case)and a neoliberal economic global model if the cold war did not get hot and could be won by non nuclear means(as it happened) with plenty of profit for the industrial/military/energy corporations etc etc
that is the simple version,the partial version could run to a few million words and the full version would probably be too huge to contemplate.
ps the nuclear strategy part might have been a deal breaker for old fashioned uk patriots or european royalists once MAD was seen as redundant in favor of hit em first and hit em hard enough that most of the response was absorbed in europe.
An interview with Blunt has been put up on Youtube:
Q: “How do you feel like being called a traitor now?
A: “I can’t deny it”
From other sources:
“There were rumours of an orphanage in Ireland (Ronna had contacts in the IRA) where men she named for me filmed children being abused by people specially chosen for blackmail – as they were being slowly strangled to death by Anthony Blunt. Snuff-movies.”
“There is a ceaseless war against drunkenness and cruelty and vice.” Anthony Blunt – See more at:
i dont think he often won against his personal demons.
an important aspect of blunt’s involvement in context is that he was an anglo irish mason and was a brother to henniker(chief anglo irish M’s),mcgrath and mckeague among others.
the book quote where i found them in the same meeting room at a major celebratory function presided over by dickie (chief all M’s at the time,he was subsequently replaced as global grand master by phil )was an obscure history of the anglo irish lodges which “dissipated” from the internet within a couple of days from me finding it with a blunt+henniker+mcgrath +mason search.
this is annoying but a timely reminder to keep a pdf of anything of interest as soon as it is found.
Sir Cliff Richard is re-interviewed by police over historic sex claims:
regarding msm coverage this
was flagged on the news page of the online version for a very short while,when i just went to see how well it covered what mr mann actually said (it misses some very important points) it could only be found by searching (if you knew it had been there).
considering what is at stake both in terms of the direct crimes that have been concealed ,the implications for that for “democracy” and the potential for justified and extreme public anger at the other related activities of the darker hidden players are reasons to resist these matters being exposed in a way that cannot be dismissed as “crackpot conspiracy theories”.
Thanks for giving attention to this important statement by John Mann and very interesting government response which I hope it will be possible to check from published transcript confirmation that the Home office did fund PIE but Wanless was unable to prove why it was done, in the same way they could not make a judgement about a sinister justification for the destruction of significant files or trace those that had been secreted in other places.
There are a number of reason why John was alone with the Minister responding. If the longer sessions earlier that are looked it will be noted that these debates are only attended by a handful of interested parties and rarely attract media attention similar to last item adjournment debate in the House of Commons each evening.
John along with Simon Danzuck are alienating themselves form their political colleagues because of voicing in public attacks on the new leadership and approach.
There was the problem of interfering with the police ongoing inquiries and any subsequent due process if prosecutions take place and as the government Minister stated the Statutory inquiry has been set up in response to a general clamour from the most vociferous campaigners, victims and their lawyers and other interests
As I have said and will continue to say there is now indication that the attack on individual Members of the Commons who have campaigned for effective police investigations and formal inquires is just the first shots in the attempt to derail and discredit the Goddard Inquiry before it gets into gear. The move was well orchestrated between 1997 and 2002 and successfully cut short the investigations then underway as it had been for decades beforehand starting with Harold Wilson
” John along with Simon Danzcuk are alienating themselves form their political colleagues because of voicing in public attacks on the new leadership and approach.”
Unfortunately this is true – although John Mann’s criticisms of the new leadership have being more nuanced and targetted than Danzcuk’s.
Given that GKY was a distinguished soldier, an MP and deputy director of MI6 it is somewhat surprising that the only detailed info on him comes from back issues of Lobster Magazine. Google scrubbed?
i looked at his wiki page i saw the connection with airey nieve a week later i went to see if i had missed anything and all links to him and nieve had been removed conspiracy or just sloppy editing im not sure.
neave has been subject to the rewriting of history for some considerable time .
“Even as late as 1975, when Mrs Thatcher became leader of the Conservative Party, groups of senior Tories were secretly gathering to hear spy-writers such as Chapman Pincher address them on the “grave dangers facing Britain from the left”.
It was in response to such beliefs, according to claims by the anti-fascist magazine Searchlight, that plans for secret armed cells to resist a more left-wing Labour government were drawn up by a group that included George Kennedy Young – the ex-deputy director of the British intelligence service MI6 and a notorious racist and anti-Semite – and Airey Neave. The claim gained unexpected credence when, despite official MoD denials, two former British Army generals – Sir Anthony Farrar-Hockley, the former Nato commander of Allied Forces Northern Europe, and General Sir Walter Walker, another former head of Nato’s forces – confirmed that a secret armed network of selected civilians was set up in Britain after the war and was secretly modernised in the Thatcher years and maintained into the 1980s. Moreover, Searchlight alleged, Neave and Young were key figures in an extreme-right group called Tory Action, which was at the centre of a smear campaign, involving the secret services, aimed at discrediting the Labour government in Britain in 1975.”
@balderdashshite your citation of Searchlight betrays your ignorance of the way the game is played and the actual players. There are many on the Left that realised a long time ago that Searchlight is at least in collaboration with the State apparatus if not actually an integral part of it.
there are some who believe gen walter walker was deeply involved in an aborted coup plot around 1974 and that it was intended to install dickie in the pinochet role but that dickie refused and scuppered the plan.
im not certain this is correct but there was some very unusual military activity leading up to some odd mobilisations one weekend which were quickly abandoned and subsequently the subject of speculation and gossip in military circles.
at least two very senior officers thought that “coup”scenario plausible and one got very flustered at the question.
young should certainly be looked into more closely as should airt nieve.
i find that people who spread rumours about others are sometimes guilty of what there accusing other people of.
and theres also the fact that young s wiki is constantly being changed.
Interesting to note that the Society for Individual Freedom is described as a member of ‘Backlash’, formed in 2005 in order to oppose a new law criminalising possession of “extreme pornography”.Section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, gives a full description of ‘extreme pornography’.
It makes for uncomfortable reading, even for someone with a broad mind.
The above describes quite a lot of the stuff you’d see in one of those Japanese or Korean weird dramas. Visitor Q and so forth. I don’t think that should be illegal – unlike child porn and suchlike. There is an post on this blog on the “pseudo image” which you might be interested in Barry.
^ The Wikipedia article on this legislation is quite detailed and worth a read. The legislation (and the manner of its implementation) has been criticised on various grounds by academics, civil libertarians, and others.
Thanks TDF. Perhaps why the person said to have the photo of Cameron is unlikely to come forward ;)
Thanks for that gw.
As both Raikes and Courtney were dead by the end of the 1980s, one wonders who was young enough to have had access to the original documents in the 1980s and is still alive today to hand it to John Mann?
Courtney was obviously working for the security services, probably spying on the Russians. He may therefore have been someone they would like to have discredited. Notably, his Parliamentary career ended in the 1960s.
Raikes left office mid-Parliament in 1957, which begs the question as to whether there was a scandal which precipitated it.
Both had significant careers in the armed forces and both served during WWII.
It may reasonably be hypothesised that both did ‘black arts, deep background’ work for Tory HQ and the whips office, courtesy of ongoing links into the security services and their known work in intelligence.
courtney was on hms seraph ww2 (and a few years after )and deeply involved with soe/6 insertions and extractions in both the eastern med and later the baltic.this brought him into contact with henniker,maclean,amery,neave,ryder,philby,(probably angleton and others via the oss)and almost certainly many other spooky types of the times.
his very wide range of contacts in london during the 1960’s probably include some very unpleasant chaps in the clubland/underworld scene.
the russians did try to blackmail him via a honey trap with a blond lady but as mrs c didnt care and supported him by publicly stating “those are not his underpants” he shrugged it off but he was toast as far as visits to russia from then on which implies his spooky activities became more domestic from that time on.
his biography is full of strange ,dodgy and spooky data ,in some ways he seems to be of a quite obvious character but in others his motivations are rather more obscure.
John Mann a rare and very brave man, campaigning tirelessly on behalf of the many Survivors without a voice and for some semblance of decency, that can hopefully come from uncovering and dealing with the appalling legacy of Child abuse in the UK.
The only conspiracy, a word that is always bandied about, he states is, “the conspiracy of cover ups”. That the scale of abuse is “jaw dropping” “everyone needs to open their ears and eyes and see what is going on…that what is underneath is far bigger than you can see”. Yet he talks to an empty chamber and the press has hardly picked up on the fact, that he is discussing among many other things, a former deputy director of MI6, George Kennedy Young, who he describes as a “manipulator”, of the carrot and stick variety that Dpack often refers to, no wonder there have been cover ups.
John Mann also clearly states that both the Dickens’ dossiers contain damning evidence and information that should have been investigated back in the early eighties, when they were first given to Leon Britten, why weren’t they investigated and why is the 1st Dossier still missing? John Mann also claims to have spoken to someone who has seen the 1st Dossier, yet he is unable to talk about the contents, because of the Official Secrets Act, why is this the case, what information is being withheld from the Public, that can be so sensitive and surely given what John Mann discusses, doesn’t the Public have a right to know?
Did Mann say that this was written up by someone who then passed it to Dickens?
Reblogged this on VICTIMS OF THE STATE.
Reblogged this on perfectlyfadeddelusions.
young has been on my radar for a while as a major player in the gladio b/clockwork orange events,not as “the leader” but as a high placed functionary.
mr mann has put a tiger among the pigeons with his statement not just about csa and the use of csa as a means to an end but as to the nature of that end.he said nothing that seems at odds with my understanding of context and has confirmed various things .that the dickens papers are as comprehensive in their political implications as he implies they are was obvious from the efforts that have been made to suppress and distract from them but they seem more important and broader than i had expected.
WELL DONE SIR and well done to those who safeguarded and presented them to him .
in other news the statement made by mr paul flynn at around 1550 gmt during the opposition debate on policing in the main chamber of the house is perhaps also relevant.he mentioned operation tiberias in broad outline and without using the M word (he said something like branches of a fraternal,secret society)explained one mechanism for deeply ingrained corruption between criminals ,the police and persons at all levels of all branches of government.he mentioned danial morgan and steven lawrence but implied those events were just the tip of the iceberg and the planning,organisation,carrying out and cover up of many serious crimes and the involvement of “the corrupted” at all levels.
i wonder if his choice of the the words ” the corrupted” has particular literary significance and refers to g f newman’s work of that name.if so his statement is even more relevant to mr mann’s in the wanless inquiry hearing,even if he did not see that significance i did (:
i wonder how both statements will read in hansard and if the msm will pick up on either or both and if both put them together ?
quite a day when an mp tells it like it is and states that that the conspiracy hypothesis is very likely a sound theory with simple but ugly explanations.
i still havn’t decided about courtney’s motives for breaking ranks and briefing dickens but losing a mentor and a good chum might have made him think things had gone far too far.
ps i recon the dickens papers that mr mann has are real cos some of the things he said can be confirmed by other means and the implications of what he said are far too dangerous to use as smoke and mirrors.
AGAIN WELL DONE FOLKS
Hi, I’m sure you are aware of this but, as GKY’s importance in the scheme of things is reassessed, this quote from him sheds some light on the course of our foreign policy over the last few decades.
“I discovered the pattern of minds so different that I would have to abandon completely, the verbal descriptions we use automatically in European discourse.” He believed that the Arabs suffered from that ‘perpetual neurosis…which makes words like ‘truth’, ‘falsehood’, ‘sincerity’ and ‘treachery’ such inadequate descriptions when our ambassadors report on their dealings with Middle Eastern rulers’.
He wrote that men in the Arab lands had not evolved ‘from a tool-making animal’ into one conveying meaning ‘by conceptualized systems of symbols’ and thought that no matter ‘whatever wealth or material welfare they may acquire, either by their own acute intelligence or by the fruits of Western development and commerce, a point will always come when the discrepancy between their dreams and the reality becomes too great to bear and there will be a desperate effort to find relief in a new focus of hate’.
Young later told his officers that the Arab’s chief characteristic ‘is a simple joy in destruction which has to be experienced to be believed…There is no gladder sound to the Arab ear than the crunch of glass and his favourite spectacle is that of human suffering…While the European has been building, the Arab has looted and torn down.’
paul flynn’s contribution to the policing debate 4 nov 2015
“3.49 pm (pasted from hansard.)
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): The wisdom and strength of the Opposition resolution was proved by a novel decision by Leicestershire police, which recently decided to experiment by investigating only those burglaries that took place in houses with odd numbers. If the house had an even number, the burglary was not investigated. The news was welcomed with gratitude by the Leicestershire branch of the burglars and footpads trade union, but it was less popular with residents of Leicester who live in houses with even numbers.
I pay tribute to the late Michael Winner—it is rare that one has the opportunity to do that—and the matter of recalling and commemorating the deaths of policemen. Mr Winner, who was not admirable in every way, set up a charity to establish memorials on the sites where policemen had died in the cause of duty. We do not use such anniversaries to achieve political benefit for ourselves; we wear poppies because we want—genuinely—to mourn the deaths of those who have given their lives in warfare, and learn lessons accordingly. It is disappointing when a Prime Minister accuses us of using the Armistice ceremony for political purposes, when he started Prime Minister’s questions today by using the Armistice service to score a futile point against the leader of the Labour party.
My point is about Mr Daniel Morgan, and it is an issue of enormous importance that is endemic to the police force. Daniel Morgan lived in Llanfrechfa on the edge of my constituency. He was a 37-year-old private investigator who was working in London on a job to investigate police corruption. He was found dead 27 years ago in a pub car park in south London. His brother Alastair, who I spoke to yesterday, has carried out a campaign over all those years to expose what happened and discover the reason for the murder. He is still unhappy, and rightly so.
4 Nov 2015 : Column 1026
I am one of the few Back Benchers who have had the opportunity to read an amazing document called “Operation Tiberius”—I recommend that anyone who has the opportunity to read it should do so. Two members of the Home Affairs Committee were allowed to read it under strict conditions, with a policeman standing next to us making sure that we did not take notes. Our cameras and mobile phones were also taken away so that we could not copy it. People are not allowed to know what is in “Operation Tiberius”, and I am bound by the secrecy vow that I made at the time not to reveal what I read. I can, however, reveal what the Independent newspaper has said about “Operation Tiberius”, and it is terrifying. The document reveals that corruption in the Metropolitan police force is endemic and has been for many years. The scale is staggering.
Andy Burnham: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, because I recently had the privilege of meeting Daniel Morgan’s brother, who has campaigned with unbelievable courage over the years. My hon. Friend should be in no doubt that although I am calling today to protect our police and for more resources, that does not mean that we should not learn the lessons of what happened at Hillsborough, Orgreave, Shrewsbury and in the case of Daniel Morgan. We must hold that mirror up to the past if we are to build a police service that is ready for the 21st century.
Paul Flynn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, and I am far from being anti-police. I have known every police chief constable in my area since 1972—43 years—and they were all men and women of integrity who achieved great things in that police force. It is a fine force, and has been all that time. I was brought up to believe that all policemen were like “Dixon of Dock Green”, and that is why the contents of “Operation Tiberius” are so deeply shocking. It tells the story of crimes planned by little units of serving police officers of various ranks, and criminals. They met not in clubs or pubs where they would be observed, but in the branches of a secret fraternity. Jack Straw tried to persuade all police forces in the country to require a declaration of membership of that fraternity, but he was frustrated in that effort, because several of them refused to co-operate.
I believe that we must look at the “Operation Tiberius” report. I see no reason why it cannot be published with the names redacted. The names are all there—names of serving policemen and names of criminals—and the crimes are horrendous: they were plotting crimes, organising crimes, carrying out crimes, covering up crimes, and using people who were corrupted in all branches of Government. The report exists, and it is deeply serious.
I have already talked about Alastair Morgan. Another worrying example relates to the murder of Stephen Lawrence, and the way in which the police—certainly—tried to protect the perpetrators of that dreadful murder. We should recognise that a great problem existed then, and we should ask whether it still exists. When I raised it with Bernard Hogan-Howe in the Home Affairs Committee, he generously admitted that the issue was one of great seriousness, and that many people believed that the problem still existed.
The report, which was leaked to The Independent all those years ago, is also significant because, although it covers many parts of London, it does not cover south
4 Nov 2015 : Column 1027
London, where Daniel Morgan was murdered. The suggestion is that there was some corruption in that leaking. I ask the Home Secretary and Ministers to examine the report and find out whether it is true that the contemporary situation in the Met is one in which endemic corruption still flourishes”.
that is pretty much how i remember it without rechecking the recording ,the atmosphere in the chamber was stoney shock from most present not just at what he said but that he said it.
ummm ,that seems to have been missed by the msm although it is significant and not only in the matters he mentioned explicitly .
I heard Paul’s contribution to this debate too. As you say dpack, the ‘stoney shock’ was palatable, as it often is when John Mann speaks or when Tom Watson asked that infamous question. It’s as if there are certain topics that everyone understands as taboo – we have all heard of the issue, and we do wonder to what extent the stories are true, but we all know we don’t talk about it. So when someone does talk about it, we feel faintly embarrassed and a little uncomfortable, unsure whether we should offer an opinion and if so what opinion would be seen as acceptable. It’s that awkward polite dinner-party moment when someone starts talking about sexual fantasies, or their religion or the latest conspiracy theory; when the hostess smiles somewhat assertively “O-Kay. Why don’t we talk about something a little more cheerful now? Simon, how is little Elsa getting on at nursery school?”
And so with taboo comes euphemism – an attempt by the speaker to talk about a serious subject and gain the attention of his or her listeners, without crossing the line into taboo. Words like “FGM”, “child sexual abuse” and “sanitary towels” are typically used in the Hose of Commons instead of “clitorectomy”, “buggering a child” or “tampons”. All understandable you might say, to save MPs and the public from the graphic mental images such words can inspire. But why exactly is it taboo to talk about “the Masons”? Why was there a need for Paul Flynn to say “secret fraternity”? Is there some unspoken acceptence that within this phenomenon called Freemasonry there is some dark secret none of us should speak about? Is there really a powerful criminal elite reaching into the various structures of society that works through the Freemasons and has therefore ordered its servants in the media and politics not to even mention its name? Or is it simply that noone wants to be seen as a mad conspiracy theorist by talking of the Masons when noone in the mainstream media or politics does? And yet the Freemasons do exist. I know people that are members, others that have been approached to become a member. Yes, we know they think of themselves as a ‘secret society’, but why should that put them beyond critical discussion, political inquiry, or worse still, criminal investigation?
Can you stop sending me this crap.
Sent from my Samsung device
Young was also president of the Society for Individual Freedom
A bit on Tory Action:
I wonder what this lot discuss. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Tory_Action/info
This restricted news group seems to have been awfully busy for a defunct organisation with 41 members. https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Tory_Action/info
I heard MI5 slipped him a sexed up dodgy dossier and word got out.