The third Geoffrey Dickens dossier: List of ‘eight big names’ given to DPP

It now appears that the Home Office have ‘lost’ the two child abuse dossiers that were given to former Home Secretary by the late Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens. New information also shows that the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a group who wanted the age of consent lowered to four years old, were directly funded by the Home Office. (Daily Mirror 21.11.13)

The two dossiers were handed to Leon Brittan in November 1983 and January 1984, but a newly discovered press cutting (see below) shows that Geoffrey Dickens personally delivered a separate file to the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Thomas Hetherington, in August 1983. The file contained details of eight prominent public figures who were paedophiles that Dickens had separated out from the later dossiers. The list was based on information supplied by the public in the wake of the Sir Peter Hayman scandal. Dickens ruled out any names that were only mentioned once or twice, and double checked information using a team of researchers.

“I’ve got eight names of big people, really important names, public figures. And I am going to expose them in Parliament.”

It could be that one of the eight names who Dickens said “has been a friend of mine” was Cyril Smith, as Dickens’ Huddersfield West constituency bordered Smith’s Rochdale constituency.

But if so, who were the other seven? My guess is that they were all politicians, which explains why the file was handed to the DPP, as opposed to the Home Secretary who received the other two dossiers. Or was there another reason why the file wasn’t given to Leon Brittan?

It made no difference in the end as it appears the file was never investigated. Dickens threatened to name the eight paedophiles in Parliament if no action was taken, but for some reason this never happened. In 1981, Dickens referred to the Establishment’s protection of paedophile diplomat and PIE member Sir Peter Hayman as “the cover-up of the century”. His comment may have been an exaggeration based on that case alone, but is sounding increasingly accurate as a description of the Establishment’s ongoing protection of powerful paedophiles.

As well as the Dickens file, the DPP was given several large files of evidence on PIE members by Scotland Yard between 1978 and 1983 but this resulted in a pitifully low number of arrests, and the leader of PIE was allowed to abscond to Holland. The DPP’s failure to act on this evidence is even more inexcusable when you consider the public outcry around the sickening ‘Brighton Beasts‘ case which was front page news throughout August 1983. This case also put pressure on Leon Brittan to ban the Paedophile Information Exchange, but he refused to do anything. Hopefully the reasons for this will become clear in time.

See also Leon Brittan and the Paedophile Information Exchange

Daily Express, 25th August 1983 (click on image to enlarge)

Exp250883a Palace link in child sex scandal (25.11.83)

MP alleges paedophilia at palace (24.11.83)

MP hands over shock report on child sex (19.01.84)


TV chief is named in child sex probe (20.01.84)

Advertisements
8 comments
  1. SS Smith said:

    I think the late Geoffrey Dickens MP should be awarded posthumous recognition for all the work he did concerning child abuse. He stood up for the rights of victims of abuse and gave no protection to the evil pedophiles within our sick society. If we take away knighthoods after a person has died then surely we can award one to this late MP?

    Please may I ask everyone who wants to eradicate the evil acts of pedophilia and the protection afforded to these b********s not to confuse sexual predators to pedophiles We must not confuse these offences if we are to eradicate them from our society. They are both wrong but not the same.

    • Peter McKelvie said:

      Can I express my total support for the view expressed by SS Smith on May 2nd.

      However evil people like Max Clifford are it is a totally different situation from the abuse of a child and in particular a very young child.

      Showing that the power and influence of someone like Clifford and Hall can be broken ( when brave survivors stand up and tell the truth in a legal system that appears to have suddenly woken up to the reality of abuse and given survivors greater hope than has ever been the case in the dark past ) is only the beginning.

      Having worked in the investigation of allegations of child sexual abuse arena for many years before retirement I know only too well how the balance of power was always in favour of the abuser and their defence lawyers, who sought to destroy the child as if it was just a game, and the more powerful or well connected or ” protected ” the paedophile the greater was the injustice.

      It is now the time of the survivor. However painful it is to have to relive the memories any survivor of the last 30 years or more who wishes to have their situation investigated, re – investigated or reviewed there is great hope but no guarantee.

      Several Police investigations are going to charge very powerful people even in Parliament in the near future, even those who everyone knew were guilty and were subject to Police inquiries which didn’t result in charges, and those who were protected from even a Police investigation by fellow ” Establishment ” figures whether it be politicians, civil servants, security services, masons or whoever.

      The more survivors who come forward now the better but it has to be a personal decision and it will be extremely traumatic all over again.

      Dickens was jeered by his fellow MP’s in the Commons and everyone one of those MP’s should be ashamed of their behaviour if they had bothered to look seriously at exactly what he was trying to expose.

      Sir Peter Hayman was an extremely dangerous paedophile with an expressed interest in the rape and torture of children.

      Sir Peter Morrison was a very evil paedophile standing behind a Prime Minister and her Cabinet for his protection.

      Today’s Government have so far shown no interest in investigating why Savile was so dear to Margaret Thatcher or Prince Charles, or why Cyril Smith was protected by very senior politicians in more than one party – the list goes on and on.

      I would like to say a lot more today about investigations in to powerful individuals still alive today but am bound by confidentiality and sub judice considerations.

      It’s remarkable the energy that MP’s showed to organise a champagne reception for Nigel Evans’s return to the Commons. Whatever the view is of Evan’s court case and the rightness or wrongness of the process that led to him being found not guilty, I may be in a minority but the behaviour that came out in court and was not challenged by his defence is not the behaviour of someone I would want to represent me in Parliament. In the equivalent setting in local government I am certain disciplinary proceedings would have been considered about acceptable behaviour in public office. That’s all MP’s are is public servants which a significant number need to remember.

      Since Tom Watson and Simon Danczuk have broken the mold and followed in the trail blazed by Dickens, how many MP’s have applauded their work. Less than 3 and that includes eachother.

      This shows how much more work is to be done and how much campaigning needs to be done.

      MP’s will find it harder and harder from now on to rely on the timeless protection of a mere entry in to their own party’s
      ” Dirt Book ” and social media sites appear to have stirred up the mainstream media after a worryingly slow start and exposure even for the most powerful and hitherto protected paedophiles has a greater chance than ever before of becoming reality if enough people believe this and push for it.

      Evil only continues if good men do nothing said Edmund Burke.

      Child sexual abuse has always been the easiest crime to commit and the most difficult to prove in an antiquated legal arena based on an adversarial system, the word of the damaged child against the word of the powerful abuser was always inconsistent with the reality of child sexual abuse. I have been in many a court room where there was forensic and medical evidence available but the court gave more credence to the queue of powerful associates lined up to give character witness statements on behalf of the abuser. Character witnesses have little value on the typical behaviour of a paedophile who abuses in secret, behind closed doors and is often a past master at being a Jekyll and Hyde character amongst even those closest to them.

      Only time will tell if I have the right to feel more optimistic than ever before about my belief that now it’s the turn of the child and the survivor.

%d bloggers like this: