The Power of the Paedos - another high profile case hits the 'never happened' wall?

[David Guyatt]

Oddly enough Magda, there is a curious American 'connection' mentioned in the below story, that I don't entirely know how to take. I say this because, like you, I am also cognisant of The Franklin Cover Up where the same family name is mentioned time and again. And the author of that book, knew of what he wrote.

**

More from The Slog. THis time on how the Elm House cover-up connects to Savile and how Savile connects... well, to everything.

The worst fears of several of us seem now to be realized?

Say hello to Dutroux UK:

Madlands' Savile Article

Reviewing some of the comments left by readers replying to the Farewell Madlands post, I noticed that there was particular sadness that Madlands' article on Jimmy Savile might have been lost forever. So, I've decided to recreate Madlands' excellent post here, complete with all the links.


What Jimmy Savile Really Did
March 27, 2013 by themadlands


If you are not following the revelations about Jimmy Savile closely and believe that he was a loaner who touched-up a few young groupies, then you have been deceived. Jimmy Savile's actions go far beyond what you can even begin to believe: until you look at the evidence.
In this article I am going to tell you exactly how you have been deceived, why you have been deceived and why it matters to everyone in the UK.
All links in this piece open in new browser windows to allow you to read the further information in conjunction with this piece.


The Cover-up.


On 11th January 2013, the Metropolitan Police and the NSPCC published their joint report into the Operation Yewtree investigation, titled "Giving Victims A Voice".


The problems with that report were twofold. Firstly they did not actually give all the victims a voice, only the ones who reported lower-level abuse (and considering the abuse revealed included raping mentally and physically disabled people, the high-level abuse must be, as you will learn, far, far beyond even that). It will also become clear as to why some of the worst abuse will never have been reported to the Police.
The reason for this dumbing-down through an incomplete investigation, and reporting on it, is simple. The authorities failed at all levels when it came to Savile. By limiting the horrors we, the public, find out about, the less likely it is that there will be a public outcry against those who knew about, covered-up for and participated in the abuse at all levels of our society.
The second problem is that their main conclusion was false. It was part of a cover-up. The cover-up is in place to hide from the British public one very simple fact:


Child abusers linked to Jimmy Savile go right to the top of our society and acted with the full knowledge of our Government, security services, Police, Judiciary and Press.


"Evidence" I hear you scream!


DS David Gray, who helped to lead the Savile investigation stated there was no evidence to suggest that he was part of a paedophile ring.
We are meant to belive that a man who abused children over six decades never formed close links with those who shared his sickness? We are meant to believe that a man who had the ear of Royalty, Prime Ministers and the Police was not well-connected enough to know of other paedophiles and act with them? This predatory paedophile acted alone, or at worst as part of a "loose network".
That sounds to me like we are being deliberately led away from the truth?

Jimmy Savile's nephew, Guy Marsden, told the press:


"Uncle Jimmy took me to his sick parties".


In the article he goes on to say:


"A nephew of Sir Jimmy Savile yesterday told how his celebrity uncle attended paedophile parties'.
Guy Marsden was just 13 when Uncle Jimmy' took him to a wealthy celebrity's house in London in 1967 for the first of many sordid social gatherings.


Over the next 18 months, Guy and his friends went to numerous parties' where he believes men sexually abused girls and boys as young as ten. Savile was at many of these events, he said."


"Guy said Savile sometimes arrived with a man dressed as a priest and he believed the young victims may have come from an orphanage or children's home."


Does that sound like a man who is not part of a high-level paedophile ring? How was he informed the parties were happening?
Surely by definition, a group of men arranging for care home children to be brought to private homes to be abused must be….a paedophile ring?
Marsden goes even further, stating:


"The group of runaways ended up in a fabulous house believed to belong to a famous pop impresario with a big indoor swimming pool. The celebrity home was one of the party venues.


At night you would get about 15 or 20 people turning up. There would be music and tables full of food, we couldn't believe it. There was everything we needed and we just hung around.


At first we automatically assumed the children lived there, but we soon realised they didn't. They would be brought there, sometimes by Uncle Jimmy, and would stay for six or seven hours until 3 or 4am. They were just little kids, boys and girls."


Guy Marsden, an eye-witness, close to Savile and with nothing to hide, states clearly not only that a paedophile ring was active, but that "Uncle Jimmy" sometimes supplied the children.


If you had the head of operation Yewtree in front of you now, would you not ask:


"How on earth did you conclude there was no paedophile ring when there is clear witness testimony that states the complete opposite?"


But That Was Just The Tip Of What Jimmy was involved in.


For decades there were rumours of a paedophile ring operating around the town of Scarborough, as this story from the Express shows.
Recently independent investigative reporters have started uncovering the truth of what happened there. It is a story that involves a widespread knowledge amongst the local people, that was ignored due to the power of the people involved in it.


It is alleged to have involved a prominent local businessman, Peter Jaconelli, a friend of Jimmy Savile as the picture on the Express story linked to above shows. There is also evidence it was a paedophile ring that involved local government officials and members of the North Yorkshire Police. The NY Police had evidence and reports regarding the ring, Jaconelli and Savile for decades, but all investigations cam to unexplained halts.


This article from the Real Whitby site, also gives evidence that Savile took children from a care home he had no jurisdiction over, for weekends away in, you guessed it, Scarborough. Jimmy used his cult of personality to take children to the abusers:


"The Sunday People article confirms that Savile took patients from the safety of a secure controlled environment at Rampton to visit his close friends Peter Jaconelli and Jimmy Corrigan. The patients did not meet anyone else.


They were taken to Jaconelli at his Council offices in 1971. During the 1972 visit they met him at one of his ice cream parlours (where Jaconelli is alleged to have routinely committed sexual offences) and from which the public had been specifically excluded, thereby ensuring that there were no witnesses to what happened.


The conclusion is therefore inescapable that Savile chose to take patients from Rampton to Scarborough in preference to taking patients from Broadmoor because:


Rampton is closer to Scarborough and where the other members of Jaconelli's ring were located.


Scarborough was Savile's preferred place to offend because Jaconelli's status ensured they could operate safely without fear of arrest.
The sole reason behind both trips was to move vulnerable people to Scarborough to Jaconelli.


Given the allegations against Jaconelli and Savile, the concern must be that it is highly likely that the patients were abused on both visits, possibly even in the Mayor's Council Offices."


Savile was no lone wolf. savile was a procurer of children for multiple high level paedophile rings, operating in Britain with the full knowledge of, and at times participation of, the people who we trust to run our country.


But Jimmy Was Not Just A Local Paedo Ring Procurer.


In 2008 the form childrens home of Haut De La Garenne on the island of Jersey was the centre of unbelievable child abuse allegations. Those allegations were so widespread and so evil that many people simply did not believe them.


The funny thing about Haut De La Garenne is that the initial findings were suddenly criticised. The original Police chief taken off the case and the whole thing was dumbed-down and finally forgotten again.


The problem is that 116 former child residents of the home, stand by what they say about the horrors that went on there. When we speak of horrors, let us be clear, we mean the rape, torture and murder of children by paedophiles.


Without going into details about the horror and cover-up of the Jersey paedophile scandal, I do want to address the Savile link to it.
In 2008 Jimmy Savile sued the Sun newspaper over pieces they had wrote in which the linked him to the abuse at Haut De La Garenne by claiming he visited it on many occasions.


The Sun produced photographic evidence of Savile at the home:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]4587[/ATTACH]


Savile's response? He slapped a super-injunction on the photo, forcing the Sun to not print it.
So Savile lied. He had visited Haut De La Garenne. Children from the home state he visited on MANY occasions. Even the head of the Police investigation, removed when the revelations about human remains came to light was reported as saying:


"The former head of the Jersey child abuse investigation has said he now suspects that Sir Jimmy Savile was implicated in the Haut de la Garenne children's home abuse scandal."


It was also revealed that:


"A solicitor who acted for victims of child abuse in Jersey also told the Guardian that some former Haut de la Garenne residents, both women and men, now claim they were assaulted by Savile in the 1970s.


Alan Collins, a solicitor for several Haut de la Garenne victims, said "a handful" of former residents have now made abuse allegations about Savile. He said Savile's name was mentioned several times during the police investigation of 2008 but that the evidence did not seem to stack up at the time."


We are going to go down the rabbit hole a bit deeper now in relation to Jersey, so you can see the implications of what Jimmy Savile was part of. As you have already seen he was evidently a procurer of children for paedophile rings.

This excerpt is from the now defunct News of the World:


"The youngsters were told by care staff the boat rides were treatsonly to be assaulted and RAPED at sea by pervert toffs.
Details of the sick attacks emerged as we discovered even more blood has been found in a bath in the dungeon underneath the Haut de la Garenne homeand in the drains. And our reporters have been told how builders on renovations at the home were urged by staff to BURN any bones they dug up.


We also uncover the full extent of the dark forces of corruption hampering the police investigation. We can reveal worried cops feel under so much pressure over the abuse allegations they are preparing to BYPASS Jersey's own legal system and hand their evidence to our government.
This could include files on up to seven social workers and carers who worked at the sinister homeincluding one nicknamed the pinball wizard' who HURLED kids against the walls to see how far they would BOUNCE. At least two previous senior employees of children's services on the island are also under investigation despite the attempts of corrupt former policemen, politicians and businessmen to scupper the inquiry.
We understand that two weeks ago Jersey ministers SECRETLY VOTED to have senior police investigator Lenny Harper removed from the case because they believed he was too open with the media. But the Chief of Police Graham Power refused.


One of the most serious lines of inquiry in the investitally and physically disabled peularly loaned to wealthy yachtsmen to "do with them what they chose for the day," according to our source close to the investigation.


"Haut de la Garenne staff described the trips as a treat for children who spent long hours cooped up at the home. But in reality the kids were subjected to the vilest sexual abuse on board the luxury boats.


"Our source said: "The allegations about the yachting community have come in from a number of different people…"


I will go no further than to state that one of the people who regularly sailed around Jersey was The then Prime Minister Edward Heath.
Savile's pal Edward Heath, who appeared on his BBC1 show Jim'll Fix It, was Prime Minister at the time.


Bearing in mind what you have read so far and will read from this point on, can you begin to see the implications of what Jimmy Savile may have been involved in, and see reasons why the Government and security services would suppress the truth?


The Glass Elevator Smashes Through The Roof.


In the late 1980′s Prince Charles and Diana were having, as well know, some pretty fundamental marriage problems.
Who did they turn to for assistance? Jimmy Savile. It is incredible, but true. The piece just linked to gives an overview of the story, but you have to look BEYOND what is written to see the reality. This is not a story about Jimmy's inappropriate behaviour at St James' Palace, you have to ask: why was he allowed to wander around?


"Savile is understood to have visited Prince Charles's official London residence several times in the late 1980s when he was acting as a kind of marriage counsellor between Charles and Princess Diana. A spokesman for the Prince of Wales confirmed the prince and Savile formed a relationship in the late 1970s after coming together through their work with wheelchair sports charities. Charles led tributes to Savile when he died a year ago."


So we have clear confirmation that Savile talked intimately to Charles and Diana. We see that he was also a confirmed friend of Prince Charles for many years. A man who we now know had allegations of paedophilia surrounding him for decades, was allowed to become close personal friends with the heir to the throne? Where were MI5? Are we to believe the security services, who already knew Savile's lifelong friend Cyril Smith was a paedophile, were not aware? That they had not done a security clearance check on him as would be standard procedure?
It is odd. Negligent even. Perhaps the security services simply never informed Charles or Diana of their knowledge. Perhaps Charles just trusted someone who made themselves appear trustworthy.

Lets join some more dots for you right now.


Elm Guest House, Islington & Richmond.


In late 2012 MP Tom Watson shocked the house to silence when he rose and stated that he had seen clear evidence of a high level paedophile ring operating high in London society, going even to the doors of number 10 itself.


This statement was linked to the dossier on Peter Righton, a disgraced civil servant who networked with other paedophiles as part of the Paedophile Information Exchange. beneath a veneer of civility PIE members carried out sickening abuse.


Righton's diary is reputed to contain entries were he described his abuse and then marked the boys out of ten for the punishments they could take. In short, these men were absolute monsters.


In 1992 the Evening Standard tried to uncover the paedophile ring involving many of the PIE members and others, operating in London and supplied with boys from the care homes of Islington. Despite it and others having tried to uncover the truth many times, little action was taken and many suggested powerful paedophiles escaped justice. It was dismissed as fantasy and conspiracy theory and buried.


The Islington scandal is linked to that of Elm Guest House. Elm was a gay brothel that also catered for peadophiles. It advertised in coded messages to those paedphiles as a location where there was even a room with film equipment in it.


Operation Fernbridge is currently investigating the Elm guest house scandal, which was forced upon it after care workers from the time leaked evidence onto the internet stating that high level people visited it to abuse children. Those children were supplied from the care homes of Islington. Despite the clear evidence of high level abusers, only two people have been arrested so far.


I do urge you to read as much of this a you can at some stage to see just how extensive and far-reaching the Elm guest house scandal is, and why it is being covered-up. You will also read why it was covered up at the time: because a cabinet minister was implicated in visiting it.


Just in case you are in any doubt that there is a cover-up going on, this excerpt from the Star shows there was:


"But a former detective who worked on the case revealed they were *suddenly told to halt the probe.


The furious ex-policeman said: "It wasn't that we ran out of leads but it reached a point where a warning to stop came.
"It was a case of get rid of everything, never say a word to anyone'. It was made very clear to me that to *continue asking questions would *jeopardise my career."


"Evil and probably part of an obvious cover-up. But, how does this link to Uncle Jimmy?" I hear you say. OK, lets move on.


To The Palace.


For ten short days in 1982 the press openly and frequently reported on the Elm guest house scandal as it unfolded. Then, suddenly, despite all the evidence mounting of a paedophile ring involving the government and being covered-up by the government, they stopped.
Why?


Perhaps because of hints in some of the stories printed at the time and later.


"The customers included three MP's and a member of the staff at Buckingham palace."


Palace link in child sex scandal.


The link had been established between the scandal of care home children from Islington and Richmond being supplied to paedophile brothels, to paedophiles within the Palace.


Now I know you are thinking "I see where you are going, but this is circumstantial evidence. Just because there were paedophiles operating at the Palace, it does not mean Jimmy Savile knew that".


Let's just fill you in on a few more details.


Savile was not only "brought in" to help Charles and Diana. He was also called upon to aid Sarah Ferguson.


"I was helping her not get publicity rather than get it to cool things down…."


Does Jimmy Savile seem a likely person to you to call upon to help you lower your profile? No, me neither. So you have to question the reason for his calling upon.


You probably also don't know just how cosy he was with the Queen:


"As for Savile's relationship with the Queen, he suggested it was somewhat lighthearted. "She thinks I'm odd because odd things always seem to happen when I'm at BP," he said last year, referring to Buckingham Palace. "One time I was at a party there and the Queen said: I do not recognise this person, I bear no responsibility if anything should happen' the Queen likes a joke. The next minute I bump into a lady who turns out to be Barbara Bush.


"When she sees me she says: Jimmmyyyy!' and flings her arms out and knocks champagne all over the woman next to her who says S***!' in a very loud voice and steps back in her high heel on to the foot of the woman behind. The Queen shook her head, took me by the arm, stood me against the wall and said: Stay there and don't move!' So I did. After all she is the Queen."


Diana mentioned Savile in the "squidgygate" tape:


"She was recorded saying: "Jimmy Savile rang me up yesterday, and he said: I'm just ringing up, my girl, to tell you that His Nibs [Charles] has asked me to come and help out the redhead [Ferguson]."


Along with his friendship with Prince Philip, until a reported falling out that nobody has ever heard a reason for, we have compelling evidence that Savile was welcome at the Palace. Able to basically wander into a Palace and speak with Royalty. A Palace whose staff contained an alleged paedophile ring linked to Elm Guest House.


On 16th February 2013 Exaro News reported that:


"Exaro has established that Haroon Kasir, known as Harry, who was co-manager of the guest house, used to boast that he was "best friends" with Savile. Kasir would tell friends how Savile used to visit him frequently."


It was also said:


"Harry started to behave strangely after Jimmy died".


Jimmy Savile. Elm Guest House. The Palace. Now do you see why what Jimmy really got up to has been brushed under the carpet?


One Final Drop Down The Rabbit Hole.


Some celebrities, such as Esther Rantzen, have been less than honest about what they really knew of Jimmy Savile. Esther for example, the "lovely lady" of childline, claimed she only heard one vague rumour back in the 1970′s and dismissed she knew any more in a gushing interview with Piers Morgan.


The problem is that she was told many times, as this article shows:


"ESTHER Rantzen faces claims that she failed to act on Jimmy Savile paedophile rumours.Abuse campaigner Shy Keenan says she alerted her 18 years ago.Shy who represents the charity The Phoenix Post, a victims' advocacy group said she raised concerns she had heard about the depraved star when she was contributing to a TV show."


Others, are being far more honest.


My final piece of the puzzle comes from Mr Andy Kershaw. In his article he says:


"When the news broke of Jimmy Savile's death, I sat before the rolling television news channels in a state of exasperation and disbelief. Celebrities, media heavyweights, and even representatives of the great and the good, were scrambling to gush eulogies to a man they were eager to canonise as Saint Jimmy of Stoke Mandeville or, at least, a much-loved national treasure.Every one of these mourners knew better than to pay tribute. For every one of them, as creatures of the media or the entertainment industries, had, for years, heard the persistent rumours about the real Jimmy Savile. Even in death and for another 12 months Savile would continue to pull off a public relations swindle of spectacular audacity."


He goes on to say:


"Typical of those with 20/20 hindsight was Esther Rantzen. Within a couple of days of the Savile scandal breaking, Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, and someone not previously shy of hobnobbing with Savile, was asking us to believe she had heard the rumours but had dismissed them as "green room gossip". Later, and presuming to speak on behalf of the nation, Rantzen popped up on BBC News to wring her hands and claim: "We are all guilty now."


Not me, Esther, old thing. At Radio 1, as soon as I heard the Savile rumours, I gave the guy a very wide berth. And in my autobiography, No Off Switch, written and first published while Savile was still alive, I hinted as strongly as I could that there may be a darker side, describing him as a "veteran Radio 1 DJ, tireless charity worker, another national institution, widely recognised for his interest in young people".


Note the words I have highlighted. Kershaw states he hinted at the true scale of what Savile did. Now look at the title of his article:


"The Jimmy Savile scandal will not be snuffed out".


Snuff is of course a term for movies which involve the murder of people in a violent sexual context. Most of these unbelievably evil films involve paedophiles and children. In the age before the internet they were passed around in video cassette for significant sums of money. It was an industry, men got rich out of the absolute evil depicted.


"Category 5″ child porn. The type that Police officers have to watch and state, understandably that is ruins their lives having to do so.
Elm Guest House had video equipment. Men linked to the Elm scandal also had links to child trafficking and porn in the Netherlands.
Jimmy Savile. Elm Guest House. The Palace. The Government. Child Trafficking. Snuff movies.


A few people have now come forward to say that they witnessed "Satanic" rituals involving Jimmy Savile in the basement of Stoke Mandeville hospital and in Scarborough.


Another person has stated that Cyril Smith, who as we know was a lifelong friend of Savile, was friends with a noted Satanist and visited his house.


Others are also now beginning to break their traumatised silence on having seen children killed in satanic paedophilie rituals involving notable people including Jimmy Savile.


Jimmy Savile. Elm Guest House. The Palace. The Government. Child Trafficking. Snuff movies. Satanism.


Now can you begin to see why, even if only half of the above is true, why the establishment have covered-up the truth about what Jimmy Savile did?


Discount the Satansim as fantasy. You still have links to Royalty, Politicians, paedophile rings containing murderers and cabinet ministers, child trafficking and snuff movies.


Don't want to believe the royalty stuff? Take that out as well. You still have The Government, child trafficking, snuff movies and a paedophile ring containing politicians and a child murderer.


Can't contemplate the snuff movies stuff, take that out as well. In fact, take it all out, everything you have just read.
Do you still, after reading it, really believe Savile was a lone wolf who touched up a few women and had sex with willing groupies, and that there has been no cover-up?


Of course you don't. You have a brain. But just in case you are still doubtful. Edwina Currie was asked on Twitter if there has been a cover-up about Elm Guest House:


[ATTACH=CONFIG]4588[/ATTACH]


If there was a cover-up there, then there was a cover-up over Savile.

Why This Matters To You.


Some have dismissed this scandal, even if you believe all I have told you, as all in the past. Old news. people now old or dead. irrelevant. A previous generation, different rules.


It Could not happen again.


Deep down you already know it could happen again. If they got away with it last time, there are probably protected people doing the same thing to innocent stolen children right now. Safe in the knowledge they can do what they want because the establishment is covering up for them.


I know you are thinking "why would they cover this evil up?"


One of the named people who was allegedly photographed at Elm guest house having sex with children was a top politician. He has links to both David Cameron and Nick Clegg and their families. If he is arrested, people will ask how on earth none of those people knew.


How did the security services, who vetted BBC employees throughout the 1960′s and 1970′s, not know about Savile, or Elm guest house and inform anyone? How was Savile allowed anywhere near the Royal family?


How did the currently serving politicians, who were at the time senior councillors and legal people linked to Islington and Richmond councils never hear about what was evidently a widespread scandal of child trafficking in their boroughs?


How did nobody in the BBC ever hear anything so dark and horrifying? Even with the current stories of yet more BBC paedophile rings involving staff on both Doctor Who and Eastenders showing that their "saw no evil, heard no evil" stance simply isn't credible?


How did so many ex-Police and care workers never get listened to when they spoke out about both the scale of the abuse and the fact they were warned off, time after time after time?


The truth, whatever the exact details of what Jimmy did, or what the Politicians and others did, is:


THEY ALL KNEW.


THEY ALL KNOW.


THEY ARE ALL CONVERING IT UP TO PROTECT THEIR OWN SKINS.


What happened in this country is a national scandal. If the truth is allowed to come out, through the Police involved in operations Yewtree, Fernbridge and Fairbank having their shackles taken off and the evidence stolen from them by MI5 in the 1980′s, including photo's, are returned to them, then it would make the Profumo scandal look like a tea party.


If you have a shred of compassion for children and a sense of right and wrong, what you have read should have left you shaking with anger.


Innocent children, taken from care homes, disowned and then destroyed by powerful, evil men and all covered-up by other powerful people who want to avoid a scandal.
And that is just the "highlight" scandal. There is also what happened in Wales. It has happened across the country time and time and time again. Time and time and time againt, it has been covered-up. To stop you from getting angry and demanding it stop and people in power bein held to account.


IF the past is ignored, it sends a message to those who would act in the same way today that we will accept it.


Tweet your MP.


Write to your MP and demand the home secretary commissions an enquiry.


If you now walk away from this piece without acting, you are tolerating the abuse.

In the Dutroux files, evidence went to the very top, including the king and two prince's - plus a very large segment of Belgian high society.

I have not included the various links available at The Slog, that evidence this story. I recommend those wishing to study it in more detail visit the provided link.

But now we know why this story will never be made fully public. The containment exercise - naming and shaming a few lesser celebs - is the most that will happen.

[David Guyatt]

Meant to include the below in the above. If you see what I mean:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4589[/ATTACH]

It's strange how newspapers say a prominent Tory cabinet minister has been named, but decline to name names, don't you think.

Are they scared of a lawsuit, or of getting a vengeful knock on the door from the raincoats at Box 500?

Meanwhile, Savile and his groin:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4590[/ATTACH]

[Jan Klimkowski]

Time to refreh this one, and its links.

The Paedophile Information Exchange.

Plenty of material in this thread from posts #169 onwards.

The inevitable context for the inconvenient, airbrushed, Express story.



PIE's diplomat was a British spy, his identity protected by Thatcher.

[Jan Klimkowski]

This is the context for some of the CHE documents posted by David.

NAMBLA and PIE were fronts for organised paedophile groups using the rhetoric of sexual liberation as cover for child abuse.

The reality of Power. Again.

Historic links between PIE and what is now "Liberty".

Affiliation to the NCCL

By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage" and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions". Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would "increase censorship".[3] NCCL had excluded PIE by 1983.[4]

PIE and "Henderson" aka Sir Peter Hayman

[edit] Legal action against members

In the summer of 1978, the homes of several PIE committee members were raided by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE's activities; as a result of this inquiry, a substantial report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.

In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in Magpie which were calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.

Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies. It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up: Mr "Henderson" had worked for MI6 and been a high commissioner in Canada. Mr "Henderson" was later revealed via Private Eye to be Sir Peter Hayman. In 1981, Geoffrey Dickens MP asked the Attorney-General "if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail". The Attorney-General, Michael Havers (Baron Havers of St Edmundsbury, who represented the Crown in the trial and appeal of the Guildford Four and also of the Maguire family (known as the Maguire Seven), all of whom were wrongfully convicted) replied, "I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' (Sir Thomas Chalmers Hetherington QC) advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence."[5] Dickens asked, "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highliy sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?" He also asked the Leader of the House (of Commons) to investigate the security implications of diaries found in the diplomat's London flat which contained accounts of sexual exploits"[6] There was much debate and condemnation in the World's press of these events.[7]

Here is some of the Parliamentary nonsense and obfuscation that Geoffrey Dickens MP had to deal with.

HC Deb 19 March 1981 vol 1 cc139-40W139W

§Mr. Dickens
asked the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail.


§The Attorney-General
In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of an obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons. Altogether a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under section 11 of the Post Office Act 1953 or for any other offence. Among the considerations he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited.

Subsequently the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence 140W with a tenth person. The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene section 11 of the 1953 Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post.

It has been suggested that Sir Peter Hayman was considered as a possible defendant following the police investigation into the conduct of the Paedophile Information Exchange which led to the recent trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.

I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence.

The Director of Public Prosecutions and I remain determined that, where the evidence justifies it, prosecutions will be brought in cases involving sexual acts with children or offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978indecent photographs of children.

HC Deb 08 April 1981 vol 2 c298W298W

§Mr. Stokes
asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on 19 March, Official Report, col. 13940, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions gave special treatment to Sir Peter Hayman by taking steps to prevent his indentity being revealed in court.


§The Attorney-General
No special treatment was afforded to Sir Peter Hayman and no steps were authorised or taken to protect his identity in evidence given to the court during the trial of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of Paedophile Information Exchange. I made this clear in answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on 6 April[Vol. 2, c. 68283.]to which I refer my hon. Friend.

Furthermore, although the indictment in that case was amended before trial, this was because Treasury Counsel had doubts, following a preliminary hearing, as to whether the wording of the original charges might, as a matter of law, be open to objection. The amendment did not arise from any wish to protect the indentity of any person.

The material of a pornographic nature found in the possession of Sir Peter Hayman was not relied on by the prosecution at the trial. There was, so far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware, no evidence whatsoever of Sir Peter Hayman having received or sent by post any obscene photograph of a child or young person or of his having taken such photographs or of his having committed any other act which might have been an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The mere possession of obscene material whether relating to children or adults is not in itself a criminal offence.

The Director's decision not to take proceedings under the Post Office Act against Sir Peter Hayman and others was taken in January 1979 before he received any papers relating to the activities of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of PIE.

[Jan Klimkowski]

The newspaper clip is worth rereading:

Link to a 1981 Sunday Times news clipping about "Henderson" aka former UK High Commissioner to Canada Sir Peter Hayman and PIE.

Just imagine what can come through all those diplomatic pouches that have immunity and never see customs inspections?

[Lauren Johnson]

Why is child abuse so prevalent in the deep political world?

1) Who knows? Just happened that way.
2) Paedos somehow maneuvered there way into power and just use their power as a means of self protection?
3) Paedos are selected for power by spooks so they can be controlled more effectively?
4) Actually, it's not any more prevalent than in the general population.
5) Other options If so what?

[David Guyatt]

My take on it is that power corrupts, and the more power accumulated the more one is corrupted.

I'm also quite convinced that these proclivities reflect an inner urge to power, in the same way that rape is. People with this psychological disposition tend to reach out for high office in business or politics, where they can satisfy their craving on a daily basis in public, so to speak, while practising their other craving in private.

In some cases they are then blackmailed by the intelligence services to ensure they are henceforward reliable in office. In exchange they get protection to enjoy their 'sport' in the knowledge no harm will befall them - so long as they keep doing what they're told.

This is why the main VIP paedos rarely, if ever, get named or arrested. The state is complicit in these vilest of crimes - and this can never ever be permitted to be made public. The public would call for blood if they learned of it.

These people also learn to move in circles where others of similar temperament indulge themselves. There are "parties" etc; some of these are known to have been "hunting parties" on large landed estates, where children and hunted and killed.

Having never to say you're sorry, or never being reviled by the public who remain unaware of what is really going on, means your indulgences usually need to get viler and viler to generate the same 'kick' as before. This connects to the following:

There is also the satanic aspect which is rarely talked about now because these days most people are inclined to switch off when it is mentioned. They just find it too incredible - and or boring - to give it space. So I'll be very brief then.

Crowley's Law of Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the governing principal here. The most extreme hedonism is encouraged. Whatever the urge - do it. Murder, rape, torture. Just do it.

There is a great deal more involved, of course, and it's to do with techniques that break normal human psychological barriers apart (in part) - but this is not the time or place to go into detail (big phews all round!).

I've recently been reading Michael Aquino's books on this subject. It has been informative, if more than a little unpleasant. I might get around to writing about it. But probably not.

[Magda Hassan]

Crowley's Law of Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the governing principal here. The most extreme hedonism is encouraged. Whatever the urge - do it. Murder, rape, torture. Just do it.

[Magda Hassan]

In some cases they are then blackmailed by the intelligence services to ensure they are henceforward reliable in office. In exchange they get protection to enjoy their 'sport' in the knowledge no harm will befall them - so long as they keep doing what they're told.

This is why the main VIP paedos rarely, if ever, get named or arrested. The state is complicit in these vilest of crimes - and this can never ever be permitted to be made public. The public would call for blood if they learned of it.

In fact, if they want to blackmail some one they don't even have to be a paedophile. Who ever is blackmailing just need to have evidence of the perception that the subject is one. For example, while the subject may be a average heterosexual male attracted to adult women of near the same age in a filmed sting a switch can take place in a compromising moment. Having said that there are no shortage of men with out morals or consciences.

[David Guyatt]

Crowley's Law of Thelema, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the governing principal here. The most extreme hedonism is encouraged. Whatever the urge - do it. Murder, rape, torture. Just do it.

Dear ol' Eric Cantona, he of the quote "When the seagulls follow the trawler, it's because they think sardines will be thrown into the sea. Thank you very much."

He also said when asked what his best moment was:

"My best moment? I have a lot of good moments but the one I prefer is when I kicked the hooligan"

[ATTACH=CONFIG]4594[/ATTACH]