MI6 chief Sir Peter Hayman named as a paedophile in the House of Commons

This is a timeline of the key news reports in the ‘Hayman affair’, in which Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens named PIE member Sir Peter Hayman in the House of Commons using Parliamentary privilege.

I’m looking for any information about the trial of two men who were part of Hayman’s paedophile network. They were said to have been “obsessed by the systematic killing by sexual torture of children and young people”. The trial took place at St Albans Crown Court in either 1979 or 1980 and they received a conditional discharge – see The Times 20.03.81 (last paragraph).

Private Eye, November 1980

Hayman1Hayman2Private Eye, February 1981

EyeFeb81The Times, 16th March 1981


New Standard, 16th March 1981

ES160381a ES160381bThe Times, 17th March 1981

Times17381The Times, 17th March 1981

Times17381aThe Guardian, 17th March 1981

G17381Daily Mail, 17th March 1981

Mail170381Daily Express, 18th March 1981

DExp_1981_03_18_003hurd_1Daily Mirror, 18th March 1981

Mirror180381The Times, 18th March 1981


New Standard, 18th March 1981

ES180381a ES180381b

Daily Mail, 19th March 1981

Mail190381aThe Sun, 19th March 1981 Shame of ‘shining star’ envoy

Sun19381b Sun19381cDaily Mirror, 19th March 1981 Secret shame of Mr Perfect

Mirror19381bDaily Mirror, 19th March 1981

Mirror19381aThe Times, 19th March 1981

Times19381The Times, 19th March 1981

Times19381 (2)Daily Express, 19th March 1981


New Standard, 19th March 1981

ES190381The Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381dThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381a Sun20381bThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381Daily Express, 20th March 1981

Exp200381aaExp200381bbThe Guardian, 20th March 1981

Guardian20381The Guardian, 20th March 1981

G200381The Guardian, 20th March 1981 How Sir Peter was kept out of the PIE trial by David Leigh

20381aG20381eG20381fThe Sun, 20th March 1981

Sun20381cThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381cThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381bThe Times, 20th March 1981

Times20381The Times, 21st March 1981

Times21381The Observer, 22nd March 1981

Observer22381Daily Express, 22nd March 1981

SExp220381The Guardian, 24th March 1981

Guardian24381The Times, 24th March 1981

HaymanTimes24381The Times, 26th March 1981The questions unanswered in the Hayman case

Times26381b Times26381bGuardian, 2nd April 1981

G020481The Times, 7th April 1981

Times070481The Guardian, 7th April 1981

G070481Sunday Express, 20th April 1981

SExp120481Daily Express, 13th May 1981 – William Hickey column

Exp130581Daily Express, 25th August 1983


  1. Troyhand said:

    [Extracts from a NAMBLA newsletter about the 1981 PIE trial extracted from declassified the FBI files: NAMBLA 1979-86. This may answer your question about the two missing defendants. Although the opinion from the NAMBLA writer of this article is repellant, the information on the course of events during the PIE trials are more than likely accurate. NOTE: Posting this in no way endorses the views of this pro-predator article.]

    Click to access Extract_FBI-files_NAMBLA_1979-86.pdf

    [Page 159]
    NAMBLA NEWS FALL 1981 – [page] 10

    Tom O’Carroll & 4 others victimized by Brit “Justice”

    After two major trials and five changes in the wording of the indictment, the State, aided by a judge and jury, finally succeeded in its intention of convicting Tom O’Carroll of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals.” What crime, deserving solitary confinement for two years, was alleged to have committed? According to the State, he had conspired with other members of PIE’s Executive Committee to encourage advertisers in PIE’s Contact Page to gain introductions to children for sex. In a second charge the defendants were said to have conspired to corrupt public morals by encouraging advertisers in the same publication to exchange child pornography. At the outset, it should be emphasized that not a single guilty verdict was brought on the latter charge, but its importance in the trials lay in the opportunity it gave to Prosecuting Counsel, David Tudor Price, to prejudice the jury minds against O’Carroll on the first, more serious charge.

    The law of conspiracy to corrupt public morals is a judge-made law, introduced in the seventeenth century, which has never been passed by Act of Parliament. It had lain almost dormant for three hundred years, and, in 1976 the Law Commission recommended its abolition. Parliament, two years later, suspended any decision to abolish the law, because recent governments had found, to their delight, that it provided a useful means of suppressing the views of dissident minorities. Prosecutions can be brought on far weaker evidence than is normally required, and judges have power to adapt the law as they go along. The outcome is that a person may not be able to know if he has broken the law until he has been already tried and convicted. A second, ludicrous fact is that it is not illegal to corrupt public morals, only to conspire with another person to do so. In 1970 the House of Lords expressed its concern over the state of the law, and introduced a clause stating that the prosecution must prove that a defendant had intended to break the law. However laudable their motives may have been, the Lords failed to appreciate that they were asking future juries, twelve ordinary men and women, to perform an impossible task, to assess what the defendants had been thinking perhaps years previously. In the first of the present trials the jury recognised this difficulty and refused to bring in any guilty verdicts at all. One of the defendants, David Wade, was acquitted on both charges. Two others, John Parratt and Michael Dagnall, were acquitted on the more serious charge. They failed to agree on either charge against Tom, or on the lesser charge against John and Michael.

    The six men and six women in the second jury were a motley selection, including one barmaid and an elderly gentleman who represented a unique proof of the existence of life after death. Evidently they considered themselves perfectly qualified in the art of mind-reading, for they brought in a unanimous verdict of guilty against Tom on the more serious charge after only three hours. The lesser charge against him was waived. John and Michael were found not guilty – since the evidence against them was practically nonexistent, the jury could scarcely do otherwise – and they were released.

    If Tom did conspire to corrupt public morals, whom did he conspire with? Certainly not with himself, nor with the three other defendants, who were found not guilty. But the State had accounted for this possibility, and had named two further members of the Executive Committee in the indictment. Conveniently for the Prosecution, neither of these members was available to defend himself: Keith Hose, ex-Chairman of PIE lives outside the UK, and David Grove, who had been PIE’s Secretary, died of cancer last year. Two weeks before David’s death, his solicitor was condescendingly informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that David would not be required to attend the trial. Yet his name was kept on the indictment. Judge Leonard in his summing-up speech, described the evidence against Keith Hose as “a straw in the wind,” clearly implying that he could not have been a co-conspirator. He was more equivocal about David, so we must assume that the jury thought him to be the other conspirator.

    How were Tom and, presumably, David alleged to have conspired together? Well, one of David’s duties had been to collect PIE’s mail, open the letters, and distribute them to members of the Executive Committee. Some letters were from members wanting to place adverts in the Contact Page. Very occasionally a member might, for example, wish to meet a family with children. Since there was a possibility that the member’s intentions might be sexual, Tom would point out that this was illegal, and suggest that the advert was altered so that it could not indicate that any illegal act was intended. Three months later, the amended advert would be duly published. The Prosecuting Counsel pounced on this point, accepting the legality of the altered advert, but claiming that Tom must have known the original intention of the member. Therefore, in his eyes, the altered advert was nothing more than a legal smokescreen. Had this view been correct, it is ironic to note that the Prosecuting Counsel did not demonstrate one single instance of sex between an adult and a child as a result of the Contact Page. Nor was any account taken of the fact that Tom had been answering at least six hundred letters a year, and been making numerous public speeches, as well as holding down a responsible and demanding job. The Contact Page only constituted a small and very hurried part of his work in PIE. In such circumstances occasional errors of judgement are inevitable, but they do NOT warrant a prison sentence.

    To make the conspiracy part of the charge stick – two people are necessary, remember – David Grove, conveniently dead, was a necessary accomplice. Having read the proposed advert from members, and, having presumably read the published versions THREE MONTHS LATER, David must, according to the Prosecution, have noticed that their wording had been altered. And, by letting them pass, he was automatically a co-conspirator. Had David been alive to defend himself, the sheer inanity of this assertion would have been glaringly obvious. He never showed particular interest in the Contact Page, and, at most,
    [Page 158]
    NAMBLA NEWS FALL 1981 – [page] 11
    would only have skimmed through it when it arrived. Furthermore, in a three month period David distributed at least four hundred letters amongst the Committee, yet he was assumed to have remembered the precise wording of only five letters which had been sent to PIE over a period of two years. So much for the alleged conspiracy!

    In the face of such trivial evidence, why did the jury at the second trial unanimously convict Tom, especially when there are good grounds for believing that at the first trial a majority were in favour of acquittal? Perhaps it was partly because the second jury were generally older and more set in their views. Perhaps they simply lacked the intellectual capacity to understand a law which even lawyers find extremely complex, and fell back on the notion that the State would not spend two years and hundreds of thousands of pounds unless somebody were guilty of something. But, in my view, the crucial difference between the two trials was due to an apparent turn of face by Judge Leonard. In the first trial he had restricted the showing of child porn magazines, relating to the lesser charge, allowing the jury to see only the front covers. His reason was that the jury’s verdict would be unfairly prejudiced against the defendants if they saw all the contents. Doubtless true! Exposure of sexually explicit photographs of children to a British jury, conditioned to believe in the myth of children’s sexual innocence, must be traumatic, and any rational verdict would fly out of the window. Yet Judge Leonard did precisely this at the second trial, allowing the Prosecuting Counsel to show twelve magazines to the jury. All this was irrelevant to the more serious charge, of course, but it could scarcely have failed to have a damaging effect on the jury’s mind.

    On Friday 13th March, 1981, Tom was sentenced to two years imprisonment, and sent to one of London’s more notorious prisons, Wormwood Scrubs, where he remains at time of writing (30th May). He is in solitary confinement, and will remain segregated from the rest of the prison population for the rest of his sentence. He is locked in his cell for twenty three hours a day, but is allowed to spend one hour on exercise with other segregated prisoners – provided it doesn’t rain! On advice from his solicitor, he will not appeal against the sentence. He is allowed to receive letters from personal friends only. His own letters are limited to two a week, one of which he must pay for, and he is allowed visits twice a month. All letters are strictly censored, contrary to a decision by the European Commission for Human Rights. We have succeeded in getting through some books, a radio, a regular subscription to a newspaper, and some money, but, as yet, very little else. The prison authorities have arbitrarily refused a number of items without explanation. I visited Tom some days ago, and he was very cheerful and said he felt well, but he had lost a lot of weight. As a result of the massive press publicity he is well-known to the other prisoners, and has had threats, verbal abuse, and one half-hearted attempt at physical assault. But he feels he can cope with these difficulties.

    Tom and Michael Dagnall face another, even more preposterous charge, conspiracy to commit gross indecency. The substance of the charge, for what it is worth, is that they were seen with two boys shortly before the second trial. In fact, the four had struck up a friendship at a local swimming baths, had then gone roller-skating two days later, and had planned to go horse-riding the following weekend, subject to the parents’ approval. Nobody has alleged that any indecency actually occured, or was ever attempted, only that Tom and Michael must have intended to commit gross indecency. BECAUSE THEY ARE PAEDOPHILE! The fact that there was no complaint from the boys or their parents, that there is absolutely no substantive evidence to indicate that Tom or Michael had planned anything illegal at all, and that Detective Sergeant Brian Collins, who was responsible for the PIE investigation, was driven 60 miles to observe the arrests, because “he was interested,” smacks of outright police harassment, and more. The implications of a successful prosecution will be horrifying for paedophiles in the UK. Any two paedophiles could be convicted of conspiracy if a child were seen talking to them. Tom and Michael are due to make their third appearance in court on 22nd June.

    [I don’t know the author of this article for NAMBLA, but whoever it was, he’s British. He wrote paedophile, instead of pedophile, favour instead of favor, etc. Not an American writer. n page 20 of this newsletter included in the declassified FBI files, there’s a review of O’Carroll awful book by a Michael Bronski.]

    [Page 165]
    NAMBLA NEWS FALL 1981 – [page] 20

    O’CARROLL: A Book From The Process of Struggle
    JANUS: More Lies From The Victimization Crowd

    Reviewed by Michael Bronski

    [The article shows what a farce and show trial this was and that the prosecution had no real intention to stop the paedophile ring called PIE or jail the predators.]

    *** “the State… named two further members of the Executive Committee in the indictment. Conveniently for the Prosecution, neither of these members was available to defend himself: Keith Hose, ex-Chairman of PIE lives outside the UK, and David Grove, who had been PIE’s Secretary, died of cancer last year. Two weeks before David’s death, his solicitor was condescendingly informed by the Director of Public Prosecutions that David would not be required to attend the trial. Yet his name was kept on the indictment. Judge Leonard in his summing-up speech, described the evidence against Keith Hose as “a straw in the wind,” clearly implying that he could not have been a co-conspirator. He was more equivocal about David, so we must assume that the jury thought him to be the other conspirator.” ***

    [Are these the same two that were “conditionally discharged” from St Albans Crown Court?]

    [The fact that a January 9, 1981 Peace News article states five defendants began the first PIE trial, while the second article of the first PIE trial has only four defendants makes more sense now. Was the fifth defendant Keith Hose who left the UK?]

  2. Troyhand said:


    Peace News – January 9, 1981

    Political trials are not infrequent in Britain. The charges vary. It may be pacifists accused of talking to soldiers (the BWNIC trial); it may be journalists accused of listening to soldiers (the ABC trial); it may be anarchists accused of being anarchists (the Persons Unknown trial). A common factor in trials that are widely accepted as being “political” is always that the charges relate to ideas rather then actions, though they’re often dressed up in the form of an alleged conspiracy to do something or other. Another common factor is that they are “crimes” without a victim— other than perhaps the sensibilities of the authorities.

    The latest trial of this sort starts at London’s Central Criminal Court— the Old Bailey— on Monday next (January 12). Five men associated with PIE (the Paedophile Information Exchange) are accused of “conspiring to corrupt public morals”. They are not accused of any specific offence – indeed there’s no such offence as “corrupting public morals”, (This is one of the few remaining possibilities, since the reforms in the 1977 Criminal Law Act, of charging someone with a criminal conspiracy to do something which is not in itself against the law.)

    What will probably set this trial apart from others is the lack of traditional liberal and, perhaps, even more radical support because of the “sensitivity” of the subject matter. The five men have been members of the executive committee of PIE. The aim of PIE was to bring together paedophiles (literally, lovers of children) in order to come to a common assessment of their sexuality and to form a corresponding programme of legal reforms. The prosecution says that some of the paedophiles that the five helped put in touch with one another (not the five themselves) engaged in criminal activities.

    In his article on Pages 13 and 14 of this issue, Roger Moody argues that though there are criticisms to be made of PIE (Roger has himself written more radical defences of paedophilia in Peace News) it is important to stand out against this. The trial is part of a populist offensive which, if it succeeds against paedophiles, is likely to move on to other areas where sexual liberation has thus far been felt to be better established. We should say that our attitude to paedophilia per se is not as clear cut as our opposition to this trial. But we certainly know that the way paedophiles are characterised, as child-molestors, is largely false. And there is much of the analysis of society made by some paedophiles that we would agree with. A stumbling block, obviously, is the genuineness of “consent” by young children – but it can not be solved by ruling an age at which you’re “allowed to consent”.

    One group organising in opposition to the trial- which might last a month or so— is the Campaign Against Public Morals. They’re organising a lunch-time picket of the opening day of the trial (noon to 2pm, January 12, Old Bailey, London EC4). To lend support, contact: CAPM, BM 1151, London WC1V 3XX. To get up-to-date information about the course of the trial, further pickets, and so on, try phoning London Gay Switchboard on 01-837-7324 who hope they will be kept in touch.

    Peace News for Nonviolent Revolution, Issues 2136-2160
    Peace News, Limited, 1981

    [January/February ? 1981]

    The jury in the “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” case brought in three Not Guilty verdicts at the Old Bailey last week but failed to agree on four other counts. Three of the four men concerned from the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) will have to face a retrial on the remaining charges.

    The four men – Tom O’Carroll, David Wade, John Parratt and Michael Dagnall – were originally charged. on one count each (see January 9 Peace News), with “conspiring to debauch and corrupt public morals”. In other words, they were accused of conspiring to do something which did not, of itself, constitute a criminal offence – a traditional tactic in political trials. The accusation spelt out in the indictment was that the alleged conspiracy came about with their publication of a contact page for distribution to PIE members, “intending that advertisers would thereby induce readers to provide opportunities for the commission of various offences.

    These offences varied from indecent assault, through publishing obscene articles, to sending indecent material through the post. During the course of the case, the lawyers agreed that the different degrees of seriousness of these “consequences” of one conspiracy might confuse the jury. So each of the defendants was instead charged with the same conspiracy twice – but in one instance referring only to indecent assault as the conspiracy’s inevitable result, and in the other instance referring to the two lesser consequences. The judge directed an acquittal of David Wade on the first count because he was less involved with the contact pages.

    David Tudor-Price, the prosecutor, opened his case by referring to paedophilia as grossly unhealthy, and by exalting “the old-fashioned virtues of self-discipline”. He said the four had conspired with others on the executive committee of PIE to publish the contact pages. Four prosecution witnesses were brought (besides the police involved in the case)- they had been PIE members. The essence of the struggle between the opposing councel was whether these witnesses could be shown to have been “corrupted” by their contact with PIE, or vice versa.

    After the judge ruled that “expert witnesses” – such as are allowed in obscenity cases – were not admissible, the only defence witnesses were the two of the the defendants who went into the witness box, and four other witnesses – all essentially character witnesses – called on behalf of Tom O’Carroll.

    What was not raised was the idea that children are sexual beings, with the right to make up their own minds about their interaction with one another and with adults. In other words, there was no attempt to argue a justification of paedophilia as such – especially not of its sexual aspects. But after all, the four risked prison sentences, and denying that the alleged consequences of their actions were either intended or inevitable was obviously the area to fight on. There was no allegation that any of the defendants had indulged in illegal sexual activity, nor that any was known to have resulted from the contact ads, so the defence didn’t choose to fight on stickier ground than it had to.

    The judge’s summing up was reasonably fair, and took about 2½ hours on the Wednesday of last week, and the jury retired before lunch – as it turned out for nine hours. Eventually they could only agree to acquit David Wade of the one charge against him and John Paratt and Michael Dagnall of the first of the two charges. These two still face the second charge, and Tom O’Carroll is still due to face both charges. This means that at the retrial, Tom O’Carroll will stand accused on one count of conspiring with others, none of whom are in the dock with him. This is legally possible, but will surely not go down too well with the new jury.

    This trial ended presumably in January/February 1981. The retrial was concluded on 13 March 1981 with the conviction of O’Carroll for 2 1/2 years. Haven’t seen any mention of the gross indecency trial for O’Carroll and Dagnall on 22 June 1981.

  3. Troyhand said:

    IAN PACE – Desiring Progress

    [NOTE OF WARNING: In absolutely no sense whatsoever does the printing of the below material constitute any type of endorsement; in fact the very reverse]

    Below is a range of material from PIE’s first journal Understanding Paedophilia, the predecessor of Magpie. I have copied the most significant material from those issues I was able to access.

    Vol. 1 No. 2, June/July 1976

    ‘It’s the Magnificent Six’, p. 7
    New EC:
    **** Keith Hose – re-elected to serve as National Chairperson for the coming year ****
    Warren Middleton – re-elected as National Vice Chairperson/PIE Magazine Editor
    Tom O’Carroll – elected as PIE General Secretary/responsible for the formation of local groups/PIE members’ contact service/Publicity
    **** David C Grove – elected as Director of PIE’s forthcoming children’s rights campaign/responsible for distribution of mail ****
    Charles Napier – elected as Treasurer/responsible for recruitment of new members.
    Peter Righton – elected as Organiser of prison-hospital visits/general correspondence/PIE befriending.
    Want applicants for Legal adviser and Director of Research.

    Vol. 1 No. 3, Aug/Sept 1976

    Reviews of Desmond Stewart, The Vampire of Mons; John F Trimble, Paedophilia; Dr. George P Rossman, Paederasty: Sexual experience between Men and Boys. Reviewed by John Bradshaw (p), **** David Grove ****, Humphrey Barton (p) respectively., p. 6.

    **** Grove bio, p. 6. Born in 1904, spent most of childhood in China, then studied history at Wadham College, Oxford. Lived in various parts of the world, including being Assistant Deputy Officer (Deputy Magistrate) in Nigeria. Enlisted in Welsh Guards, then into teaching career in 1939. Now retired. ****

    Vol. 1 No. 4 (1977)

    Picture of Jodie Foster in Taxi Driver on front.
    Editor: Warren Middleton
    Research Director: Dr. Humphrey Barton (p)
    Regular Contributors: ****Keith R. Hose ****, John Bradshaw (p) , Dr. Frits Bernard. Dr. Edward Brongersam, Tom O’Carroll, **** David C Grove ****, Dr. Humphrey Barton, Warren Middleton
    Regular Correspondents; Steve Barker (p), USA, Graeme Lovejoy (p), New Zealand, Bernard Beaufort (p), France, Richard Docker (p), Australia, J E Rekustad, NAFF – Norway

    Address given as 1, Elgin Avenue, London W9.
    Printed by the Wellington Bureau, 23, Craven Street, Charing Cross WC2.

    ‘Stop Press – Stop Press’, p. 12
    AGM took place at Islington HQ of London Friend on May 28th.
    Resignations from EC: Hose (as Chairperson) and Peter Righton (as Community Liaison Officer).
    Full national EC election results: ex teacher/journalist Mr Tom O’Carroll, new Chairperson
    **** Former lecturer/assistant JP Mr David C Grove new Secretary ****
    Ex-teacher Mr Charles S. Napier, Treasurer (returned)
    Social Worker Mr Jonathan Simon, new Organiser Local Groups
    Private Businessman Mr Warren Middleton (p), Magazine Editor (returned)
    Teacher Mr David Brownough (p), new Newsletter Editor
    University lecturer/sociologist Dr. Humphrey Barton* (p), new Research Director (*subject to confirmation)

    Then the following is a summary of the contents of PIE publication Childhood Rights:
    Childhood Rights

    Vol. 1 No. 1
    PIE c/o/ Release, 1 Elgin Avenue, London W9.

    Editor: **** David Grove **** for Paedophile Information Exchange.

  4. Troyhand said:

    UK Paedos – Exposed

    P.I.E – Paedophile Information Exchange

    David Grove – AKA Robin Brabban – born 1904 – secretary and Ex treasurer of PIE
    [not sure if Robin Brabban was his alias… see below from .pdf file linked to David Grove’s name]

    [Page 5]
    There has been a running argument about PIE in the Letters section of Gay News. Here are various letters in abstract:

    David Grove, London. Secretary of PIE, born in 1904, he had a relationship with an army chaplain at the age of 12. He used this as an example to refute a hostile letter from Robin Brabban, who had voiced standard anti-paedophile arguments.

    [Robin Brabban seems to be someone Grove wrote to in a response letter. I don’t think it was his alias.]

  5. Troyhand said:

    This what Tom O’Carroll wrote about David Grove on his disgusting wordpress site

    “One such colonial boy-lover was David Grove, a cultured individual, an Oxford-educated man who served as an assistant district commissioner in Nigeria from the 1920s. I knew him – lovely chap, very gentle, kind and courteous. Well, as you may know, I am quite old, but I wasn’t actually there at the time. No, like my acquaintance with that descendant of Sir Charles Napier I mentioned earlier, my encounter with David was in London, where I worked with him in the 1970s when he too served on PIE’s executive committee, producing a magazine on children’s rights. Like me, he was indicted on a charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and would have been tried alongside me and others at the Old Bailey but for the fact that he was gravely ill by then and died before the trial began.”

  6. Troyhand said:

    Montreal Gazette – 27 March 1981
    Does U.K. justice still cover up for the establishment?
    London Sunday Times

    LONDON – Sir Peter Hayman, former U.K. high commissioner to Canada, first came to the attention of the police in Britain when, in June, 1978, they raided the homes of members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

    It was, perhaps, inevitable that the police – and particularly the Obscene Publications Squad – should be interested in the activities of this organization. A few months before, after four years in the shadows, PIE had begun to campaign actively for the legalization of sex with children and to publish, for members, a monthly magazine called Magpie.

    Since PIE’s chairman, 31-year-old former teacher Tom O”Carroll, was the loudest campaigner, his terraced house in Newport Pagnall was the main target of the raid; and police found a quarter ton of “obscene” material there.

    But equally interesting was the set of pre-addressed envelopes found at the home of another PIE organizer. Those addresses gave away the identities of 30 or so people who were clearly interested in sex with children. At random, the police selected 18 of those people for investigation.

    Among those was a Peter Henderson of Linden Gardens, Notting Hill Gate, London. The police raided his flat, and at about the same time the residences of the other 17 people whose names they had got from the PIE offices. In every case they found obscene material. At Henderson’s flat they found 45 volumes of diaries detailing sexual fantasies, photographs, letters from other members of PIE, and letters from other people who were not members of PIE but who shared its interests.

    The police immediately established that “Henderson” was in fact Sir Peter Hayman. In October, 1978, they called on him and cautioned him. Hayman was appalled. “If this comes out,” he said, “I shall either shoot myself or go to Brazil.”

    In August, 1979, more than a year after the police raid on PIE, five members of the organization were arrested and charged. They included O’Carroll, the founder, and David Wade, the treasurer. They were charged with conspiring to corrupt public morals by inducing or providing opportunities for advertisers in PIE contact pages to commit any of three offences: actual sex offences, Obscene Publications Act offences, and Post Office Act offences.

    The charges were constructed in such a way that the authorities had to prove a conspiracy among the five men arraigned and the 18 men, including Hayman, who had been members of PIE and whose residences had been raided by the police. To do this the police took witness statements from 13 of the 18 men.

    A witness statement is one taken when the police plan to call the person making the statement as a prosecution witness. It means that the person will have to appear in court and be named in public. In the PIE case this would wreck their careers. The men included a retired headmaster, a probation officer and the assistant manager of a holiday camp. But they did not include Hayman.

    Only one man’s behavior was considered serious enough for him to be warned by the police, but nevertheless not required to give a witness statement and thus be revealed in public: Sir Peter Hayman.

    When the committal proceedings of the five PIE members were held at Wells Street Magistrates Court in February, 1980, Hayman’s role was mentioned several times in witness statements – but he was referred to throughout as Henderson. The first the defence learned of Henderson’s real identity was when they read it in the magazine Private Eye eight months later.

    Court reference

    At the full trial at the Old Bailey this year, Hayman was again mentioned by the name of Henderson. Private Eye had, by now, identified him as Hayman but no one picked up the court reference.

    O’Carroll was convicted of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and was jailed for two years. The other defendants, including Wade, were acquitted. Hayman’s secret remained intact until the MP Geoffrey Dickens revealed it in the British House of Commons last week.

    It is difficult to escape the conclusion that in the judicial process Hayman received special treatment. He was the only one of those the police interviewed who had a pseudonym throughout the proceedings, and was therefore the only one who at no time faced the possibility of exposure.

    Last week, Attorney-General Sir Michael Havers explained to the House why Hayman was not prosecuted while Tom O’Carroll and others were: they were involved in the management of PIE; Hayman was not. What he did not explain is why Hayman was, uniquely, spared the agony of being identified as a witness at the trial. Is there any way this special treatment can be justified?

    The best evidence on this delicate question can be gleaned from the general policy of the Director of Public Prosecutions (the government’s chief legal executive) in deciding whether to launch a prosecution. After weighing the police evidence, the DPP retains discretion to decide, whatever the evidence, whether it is in the public interest to take a case to court.

    But are these considerations different for public figures? Sir Peter Hayman’s solicitor, Sir David Napley, said last Friday that a factor the DPP customarily took into account when deciding whether to prosecute was “whether the indirect punishment and hardship which a defendant may suffer is likely to be so disproportionate to the severity of the alleged offence and to any penalty imposed by a court that it would be unjust to prosecute.”

    In fact the DPP does not believe in quite the way Napley imagines. But he does take into account the rather nebulous concept called “the public interest.”

    An eminent judge said, “The DPP takes into account what the cost would be to the nation both in money and – in a case involving prominent people – publicity and public confidence. If such a case went ahead, would the cost to the nation outweigh the benefit?” Then, as if not too impressed with this definition, he added, “This is wrong, but this is how it works. Expedience is always a factor in DPP decisions.”

    Homosexual acts

    But it is inevitable that the very looseness of these definitions of public interests should do little to help public confidence. A number of recent cases [have] increased suspicions that public figures are indeed accorded special treatment either from police or in the judicial process.

    In his autobiography, Ruling Passions, the late Labor MP Tom Driberg recounts two occasions on which police decided to take no action after he had been caught in the course of homosexual activities, and one where although he was brought to trial, the case went unreported.

    More recently, the police came to the DPP with a case concerning a highly public figure and his relations with young boys. The complaints against the man were not serious and concerned conduct which could be interpreted simply as displays of excessive affection, for example. The DPP decided that although there was a prima facie case against the man he would probably be acquitted – “he was regarded almost as a saint” – but the publicity would ruin his career. The man was warned about his conduct; he was not prosecuted.

    Sir Thomas Hetherington, the present DPP, and his predecessor Sir Norman Skelhorn agree that public interest, public morale, public confidence – call it what you will – is an important factor in a DPP’s decision whether to prosecute. Hetherington says, “Public interest . . . is still the dominant consideration.” Skelhorn says, “The overwhelming requirement being: is a prosecution in the public interest?”

    But the significant thing – indicative, perhaps, of the confusion in this area – is that they disagree over whether a person’s position in life is a factor in deciding what constitutes the public interest. Skelhorn says that a DPP has to consider the impact on a man and his family. Hetherington believes that a person’s public position is irrelevant, that there is, in fact, a temptation for the DPP to prosecute because a man is well-known.

    * This special report was written by Philip Knightley, John Ball, Anita Bennett, Jon Connell, Simon Freeman, Gitta Sereny, and Joan Smith.

  7. Troyhand said:

    Prince George Citizen – 7 August 1970
    Canada, U.K. ‘good friends’

    LONDON (CP) – Peter Hayman, the new British high commissioner to Canada, dwells less on sentiment and more on realism in his approach to the Anglo-Canadian relationship.

    As fond of history as he is of trout fishing in Scotland, Hayman rejects the often-heard argument that relations between the two countries are going sour.

    “We are good friends but we don’t have to depend on the stuffy old imperialistic past for that friendship,” he said in an interview Wednesday after his appointment was announced.

    Hayman says he believes Canada has a special role to play in the Commonwealth club. He noted that when Prime Minister Trudeau visited the Far East he made a special point of visiting Commonwealth countries. He also noted that Trudeau has described the Commonwealth as a “useful forum.” But this forum or club was not necessarily one in which Britain had to remain perpetually as president.

    Hayman, who leaves his beloved 16th-century Oxfordshire farmhouse when he goes to Ottawa in October, is looking forward to his new post with enthusiasm. He wants to get a cottage in the Gatineau hills and spend his weekends there if possible.

    This is his first ambassadorial appointment. But as a deputy undersecretary at the foreign office he has been responsible for departmental policy in North America and the Middle East and has made a number of visits to Canada.

    Hayman has two children. A native of Kent, he attended a prepatory school where his father was headmaster.

    He read history at Oxford before entering the home office in 1937 as a civil servant. During the Second World War he was a rifle-brigade major stationed at an Italian airfield, rejoining the home office in 1945.

    He switched to the foreign office in 1954. In 15 years of service abroad, he held such posts as counsellor in Belgrade, information officer to the governor of Malta and deputy British commandant in Berlin.

    In 1965 Hayman was named a commander of the Royal Victorian Order, one of the sovereign’s personal decorations. He also holds the CMG, companion of St. Michael and St. George, awarded in 1963.

    He was appointed a deputy undersecretary in 1968.

  8. Troyhand said:

    Winnipeg Free Press – 6 April 1972
    Macdonald’s Ghost Not Seen

    The wife of the British high commissioner in Canada doesn’t mind watching out for the ghost of John A. Macdonald.

    In fact Lady Hayman goes on with her activities as if there were no truth to the story that Canada’s first prime minister haunts her home.

    In an interview at Hotel Fort Garry Wednesday, she said John A. Macdonald lived at Earnscliffe, her Ottawa home, from 1883 until his death in 1892. “Though his ghost is supposed to have lingered on, I haven’t seen it.”

    The British government bought the house in 1930 to be used as a residence for British high commissioners. Sir Peter Hayman and Lady Hayman have occupied Earnscliffe since November, 1970.

    Before moving to Ottawa they lived in London, Berlin, New York, Baghdad, Malta and Belgrade. “I enjoy travelling,” said Lady Hayman, “and I’m used to starting fresh in a new city.”

    But she complained about having to leave their children in English boarding schools. For about ten years they were separated from their parents, except for visits during holidays. The arrangement was unfortunate but necessary, said Lady Hayman. In Baghdad there wasn’t even a school they could attend.

    Their daughter Virginia, 25, is now travelling across Canada. Christopher, 23, is a journalist in England.

    Lady Hayman enjoys her busy life in Ottawa. As wife the British high commissioner, she has many social obligations. Much of her time is spent arranging dinners and parties for foreign office officials.

    During her free moments she visits art galleries, skis, swims, or is involved in bird watching. In the summer she and her husband relax at their cottage in the Gatineau hills north of Ottawa.

    Sir Peter Hayman and Lady Hayman have visited most areas of Canada. “I’ve been as far north as Yellowknife and my husband has been to the Arctic Circle,” said Lady Hayman.

    This is their first visit to Winnipeg. From here they’ll go to Vancouver, then travel by ship to England. Sir Peter has three months leave which they’ll spend at their home near Oxford. “When my husband retires, we’ll settle there,” said Lady Hayman. “and I’ll get busy gardening.”

    Lady Hayman . . . chatelaine of Earnscliffe

  9. Troyhand said:

    Click to access e010790128.pdf

    [Page 9]
    Ambassadors to be invited to October 31st [1973] Banquet = World Congress of free Ukrainians

    BRITAIN (High Commission)
    His Excellency Sir Peter Hayman, K.C.M.G., C.V.O., M.B.E.,
    80 Elgin Street, Ottawa, Ont. K1M 2C9

  10. Troyhand said:

    The Empire Club of Canada
    The Empire Club of Canada Addresses (Toronto, Canada), 7 Jan 1971, p. 181-195

    JANUARY 7, 1971
    Britain in 1971
    Ladies Day
    CHAIRMAN The President, Harold V. Cranfield
    GRACE Rev. Dr. Ross K. Cameron, D.D., C.D.


    Your Excellency, Reverend Sir, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen it is my honour on behalf of the Empire Club and the Royal Commonwealth Society to welcome you to what I understand is the occasion of your first public address to a Toronto audience. It is always a pleasant task to rewrite an introduction of a speaker because he has received honour and recognition by the Queen. In my brief term of office this is the second time this has occurred. The earlier occasion was when Mr. Charles Hardie became Sir Charles Hardie. I was delighted therefore to be advised on New Year’s morning as we were paying our respects to the Lieutenant Governor that you, sir, were on the Queen’s Honours List. All present I am sure join in our congratulations. Our speaker, who shares his natal day with Mrs. Cranfield, establishes by that alone that he is a person of great gifts and a man of destiny. (I will give you the day, June 14th, but you would not wish me ungallantly to reveal the year?) He was educated in a prep school where his father was Head Master and later at Stowe in Buckinghamshire. It is a new but very excellent school, as you might well expect, where birching may not be a practice. There may have been some special occasions in which the axiom “spare the rod and spoil the child” was tested. The result, in any event, came out to everyone’s satisfaction. He completed his formal education at Worcester College, Oxford and has been a career diplomat of unprecedented success ever since. He was released from a Home Office appointment in order to take up arms in World War II, so his life has been entirely in Government Service in war and peace. This has been spent in the Ministry of Defence, with N.A.T.O., with the British Embassy in Belgrade, Malta, Baghdad, New York and Berlin. In the latter post he was the Minister. In 1966 he was appointed UnderSecretary of State in the Foreign Office. This responsibility was enlarged in 1968 when our guest was promoted to Deputy Under-Secretary of State in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when these were amalgamated. There is much more I could say in this introduction but this modest man has requested brevity by these words, “Please make this bit short.”

    His recent appointment to succeed Sir Colin Crowe as our British High Commissioner is one for which he came prepared; for his deputy undersecretary post at the Foreign and Commonwealth Services held him responsible for policy both in North America and in the Middle East. By his wise counsel and skill at negotiation, he served the British Government with distinction.

    *** We share the advantage of friendship, he and I, with the Senior representative to Europe of one of Canada’s great railways.**** Our mutual friend advised me of his Excellency’s appointment and was observant enough and gallant enough to suggest that we should declare this to be a Ladies Day in order to give ourselves the privilege of meeting Lady Hayman whom my informant advised is (quote) “Absolutely charming,” (end of quote). I am pleased indeed that it was possible because of some highplaced assistance in British-Canadian relations here at Toronto to see his suggestion followed and I am confident that I speak for you all.

    Our speaker has permitted me to prepare you for today’s topic by his disclosure that it was to be about Britain’s role in the world of today. In anticipation of the Heads of Commonwealth Governments meeting in Singapore in Mid-January, we have all been anxiously concerned that the Commonwealth will come out of it stronger and not destroyed. The very purpose of the Empire Club is to (quote) “promote the interests of Canada and the British Commonwealth by the consideration and discussion of subjects and events relating thereto” (end of quote).

    So, today’s meeting touches on a subject intimate and important to all of us here. We are pleased indeed to welcome your Excellency to his first ambassadorial post and I present to the audience:

    His Excellency Sir Peter Telford Hayman, K.C.M.G., C.V.O., M.B.E., British High Commissioner to Canada whose topic is: “Britain in 1971.”


    Thank you very much indeed, Dr. Cranfield, for that very kind and warm introduction to me. You said two other things to me: (a) I should be about twentyfive minutes; and that I will endeavour to be; and (b) that I should stick close to the microphone. That I will try to do but I have a habit of walking around when I feel passionately about something and as a matter of fact I feel passionately about Anglo-Canadian relations.

    Sir, it is indeed a great honour to appear before the Empire Club and the Royal Commonwealth Society in the presence of the Premier of Ontario. It is a great pleasure and honour that he should be here with us.

    Empire-Commonwealth. I personally hope that none of you, and of course you don’t, wish to have any kind of embarrassment about those words. It seems to me that the historical associations between Britain and Canada, which are all an integral part of the Commonwealth, and the fact that the Empire (although we may be greatly daring and call it the “British Empire”) has in fact brought great numbers of people along the road to freedom over the years and so I don’t think that any of us should perhaps join with the rather modern fashion to raise eyebrows about those words and I hope we won’t.

    Ladies and gentlemen, I am very conscious as I stand here of my predecessors, all of whom, I think, when they first come to Toronto have addressed this audience. I think particularly of that exciting person Joe Garner. I think also of that very lovable man Lord Amory, who used to have a phrase when he was in Ottawa. It was described as “going to Toronto.” That meant he was in fact going to get on a Trans-Canada bus, look in on Toronto and then go all over Canada and get to know probably more Canadians than any other of my predecessors. And then there is my immediate predecessor Colin Crowe, who was almost my closest friend at school, although I did stand rather in awe of him then and continue to do so since he became head of personnel department and therefore responsible for our future. As head of personnel department he was wise enough to appoint himself here but alas for all of us for only two years. So it is following those people that I want to address you.

    My last visit is very, very sharply etched in my memory and it was when I was following my then boss, ***Michael Stewart***. We were all air sick in the airplane coming down from Ottawa and you may not have realized it, those of you who listened to Mr. Stewart, but he had sat in the airplane waiting patiently to dictate the last version of his speech to somebody or anybody and found no one to dictate to and in fact he prepared his final speech just before he addressed you. Then there was that little matter of Biafra which he, of course, thoroughly enjoyed dealing with, as I am sure you all recognized.

    What was extraordinary, being here in 1969 and coming here again at the end of last year, was the fantastic changes which took place in Toronto even in that year. You have been described, rightly I think, as the fastest growing city in North America and this is very clear to outsiders like myself who come here.

    When I was here at the end of the year I had what was to me a very exciting discussion with Mr. Robarts who told me very clearly and gave me very clear instructions to bring as many visitors, British visitors–interesting visitors–to Toronto as I possibly could. That is what I will endeavour to do for you, sir.

    We were also very kindly received at that time by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor and as I visited him when I was with Mr. Stewart he kindly showed me once again that wonderful collection of portraits in Government House, which is perhaps the best collection of beards and whiskers in North America. A very, very fine collection of portraits.

    Then we were kindly received by the Mayor in your Town Hall, which I think is a terrific building. The only pressure I think that we put on the Town Hall was when Mr. Samples and I went to the elevator together and the elevator was groaning upwards bearing the two heaviest men in North America.

    What happened during my very short time? I have been here these two months and they have in fact been very busy, exciting, anguishing months. The two things which stand in my memory, of course, are *** the kidnapping and release of Jasper Cross and the very sad death of Pierre Laporte.***

    On that I would simply say this, that we accepted and agreed with the way the Canadian Government handled this affair and we have a great regard for the professional way in which the police rescued Jasper. *** I had a letter from him a day or so ago.*** He is, as you probably know, having a very well-deserved holiday with his wife in Switzerland and he was honoured by Her Majesty in the New Years honours. I think that he is a remarkable man and I think that the shared anxiety of that time–and not the first time that Canada and Britain have shared anxiety and sorrow–and I think of two world wars and many other occasions; I believe that the affair of Jasper Cross and the kidnapping thereof and all that went with it may and will bring our two countries closer together. I think this is terribly important.

    The second fact is ***the visit of Mr. Heath.*** Alas it was for only a very short time and alas combined with a visit to another country. I know that Mr. Robarts feels, and I certainly do, that visits by British Ministers ought to be more exclusively to Canada than they sometimes have been in the past. Mr. Heath’s visit was in fact a great success. He got on very well with Mr. Trudeau. Both, I think, realized that the other was a realist, a fairly tough realist. The foreign policy of both might not be the same. You don’t see eye to eye with us on all issues (and I am going to come to that in a moment) and we don’t see eye to eye with you on all issues but both I think recognize in the other a firm realist both in foreign policy and in home policy. I think Mr. Trudeau rather liked the style of government of Ted Heath as he came here and as his government is unrolling in Britain.

    You may remember what Dean Acheson once said. Dean Acheson was a friend of Britain but often a critic of Britain. That is because he looked like an Anglican clergyman and he was anxious not to appear to be too much British. You remember that Dean Acheson said we had lost an Empire and not yet found our role. I believe that he would say that we have indeed found our role and very much so.

    I don’t know whether anybody listened to the very excellent CBC programme last night with Dick Crossman. Some people are inclined to doubt whether people in Britain really want to go into Europe. Let me say that there are people both on the right and on the left who are hesitant about that; people of my own generation. There are those people on the left who think that they may come under some Conservative thralldom and people on the right who don’t like foreigners.

    You remember that character in Life and Cold Climate, Uncle Matthew. The ladies will forgive me if I say this. He used to say, “Abroad? Bloody!” Those are the kind of people who may be hesitant about our going into Europe. All the young people, my own children, the young businessmen, the young professional men, the young technicians, feel that we certainly must go into Europe or it will be no good for the future.

    Now what about the relationship with you? Your attitude on this was very well and plainly stated by Mr. Jean Luc Pepin the other day and I would simply like to say something about Canada’s attitude to our going into Europe.

    First of all we are quite determined, and this is very much Mr. Heath’s own view as the new Prime Minister, we are quite determined to consult you at all stages and the visit of Mr. Pepin, the visit of Mr. Sharp, the visit here of Mr. Heath and the forthcoming visit in March of Mr. Rippen are all examples of very close ministerial consultation between Britain and Canada on this important subject.

    On that I would like to make three or four quite brief points. First, I would like to remind you that the British Government and British Ministers have not reached a final decision on this. They have been consulting their Commonwealth friends. The latest person with whom Mr. Heath discussed this very fully and very realistically was Mr. Trudeau. There are going to be final consultations and discussions in Singapore.

    How do we set about doing this apart from all the millions of personal ties which exist here? Well, I believe that we do it by having as many visitors as possible. Therefore, I shall carry out the instructions, to the best of my ability, that Mr. Robarts laid upon me. I believe we should have ministerial visits; I believe we should have as many business visits exchanged and Parliamentarians and cultural visitors as possible. Some of you met Lord Fulton, the Chairman of the British Council, not too long ago. I want to get as many visitors as possible moving between Britain and Canada and between, of course, Britain and Toronto. **** Here you have Mac Samples, my old colleague, and somebody who I know is absolutely dedicated to the same views as I am. ****

    Ladies and gentlemen, let me end on this note: we do tend from time to time as people to say, “Well, you know this is a fine thing that has gone on in the past, a historical tie and close links and the sentiment about it is very important.” The fact that we have got friends, the fact we have got a grandmother in Renfrewshire is extremely important. In addition to that I believe that we should build up consciously a realistic link between Britain and Canada which is based on hard realities, on your future in 1971 and our future in 1971, and if that is done I see no reason at all why a special relationship between Britain and Canada should not be as important and as forceful and as valuable in the world as our relations always have been in the past.

    Thank you very much, sir.

    The gratitude of the Club was expressed by Mr. John Hall, Chairman, The Royal Commonwealth Society.

  11. Troyhand said:

    Click to access 184.pdf

    The Monarchist –

    On New Year’s Day, 2003, The Scotsman revealed that files just released by the British Public Record Office revealed that a plot by the Canadian government to abolish the monarchy and replace the Queen with a president was thwarted when she refused to accept a proposal curtailing her powers. Files released by the Public Record Office reveal how an uncertain political climate in Canada and the Queen’s reluctance to agree to five measures reducing her role scuppered any official bid from being made.

    “A confidential briefing paper detailed new information – which, it claims, may have been withheld by Canadian ministers – threatening her trip in 1973 to the Commonwealth Conference. The letter, typed and signed by Hugh Overton, at the North American Department of the Foreign Office, warned that the Queen’s presence ‘might add fuel to this domestic controversy. He wrote: ‘Our information is that, as a result of the elections, the Royal connection and the role of the Queen in Canada are again becoming the subject of more active domestic political interest. There is a distinct possibility, in my view, that a visit by the Queen to Canada at the time of the Commonwealth Conference, as Queen of Canada and head of the Commonwealth, might add fuel to this domestic controversy, and hence involve Her Majesty to some extent in Canadian domestic policies.’ The letter concluded: ‘These are straws in the wind. But they show that there is at least a risk of the Royal question becoming a matter of controversy in Canada over the next few months.’

    “In a reply dated 15 December, 1972, Sir Peter Hayman, the British High Commissioner in Canada, refers to a leaked document sent to the Montreal Gazette, putting forward plans to hand over five functions performed by the Queen to the governor-general. Although the Queen was said to have accepted four of these proposals, she allegedly refused to relinquish her hold on a fifth – a relatively minor one played by the Queen in Canadian external affairs. As a result, the then prime minister of Canada, Pierre Trudeau, decided against pursuing the matter because of the detrimental impact such a move could have on his leadership, which had only survived the federal elections by the most slender of margins.

    “But in March 1973, Sir Peter noted: ‘Meanwhile, there is a gradual tendency to get rid of ‘Royal’ symbols: the Royal cipher is slowly disappearing on post boxes and mail vans; the head of a former prime minister, Sir John A Macdonald, has replaced the head of the Queen on ten dollar bills. There is a gradual tendency, much to the indignation of some Canadians, to play Oh Canada more frequently than God Save The Queen, although both are usually used’.”

    [Ed -The report from the Scotsman will be of particular interest to members of the Monarchist League of Canada, as – whether by circumstances explained below or coincidence – Sir Peter Hayman’s reports to London echo nearly exactly the public positions and concerns expressed at the time by the fledgling League, which had been founded in 1970. Sir Peter was a family friend of the Aimers’, he having served in MTB’s with Founder John Aimers’ father during World War II. As a result, Aimers saw Sir Peter and Lady Hayman on a number of occasions during their time in Canada, both in Ottawa and Montreal, and articulated the League’s position in definite terms to the High Commissioner, who once, in his avuncular way, told the then-21 year old Dominion Chairman not “to bash too hard at this, John.” Others will recall that in retirement, Sir Peter gave a memorable address to some 75 members who had traveled to London for the Golden Jubilee celebrations at their trip-end Banquet held at the Dorchester Hotel.]

  12. Troyhand said:

    Click to access Hugh-Jones.pdf

    Interview of Sir Wynn Hugh-Jones by Malcolm McBain on 15 August 2005

    [Page 42]
    Reflections on the kidnap of Jasper Cross in Montreal in October 1970

    MM: And of course there was the kidnap of Jasper Cross.

    WHJ: That was immediately after my departure. I spent the evening with Jasper and his wife in Montreal before catching my plane. We had supper at his place and Barbara was very much on edge. She must have sensed something I think. I’m perfectly sure they had no warning. The High Commission had had no warning whatsoever.

    MM: And anyhow the principal target was the American Consul, not the British.

    WHJ: Well that’s what my American friends keep telling me. They probably think that they count for more than we do, but I don’t know. Do you reckon that’s so?

    MM: Well, I’ve done an interview with Jasper Cross.

    WHJ: Oh you have?

    MM: We know them well.

    WHJ: Oh do you. Well you give him my kind regards. I saw him when I came back to London. I felt strongly that he was not treated right. That there was an attitude in the Foreign Office that said it was his own fault. This had never happened in the Foreign Service before and there was an inclination to try and blame someone. I was on a business management course at Oxford at the time …. I went to the FCO Personnel people and said: “I hear these stories. I don’t like them. If there’s any suggestion that Jasper is to blame, forget it. I was one of the last people to see him from the High Commission before he was kidnapped and can vouch that neither he nor we had any warning whatsoever”. So, is Barbara all right?

    MM: Yes fine. They’re coming to stay with us this weekend.

    WHJ: Really. That’s a happy coincidence. Please say I’ve never forgotten them and I say so in my book. Warm greetings to them.

    MM: He goes back, or has been back to Ottawa recently at the expense of the Canadian Government for reunions of the principal actors and television replays of the kidnap. It’s still regarded as a significant political event in Canada and Canadian schoolchildren are taught about it.

    WHJ: I’m glad to hear it. He wouldn’t like doing the piece – not an extrovert – he was not like the next one who was kidnapped, Geoffrey Jackson – who was Jasper’s opposite number in Toronto before he went as Ambassador to Uruguay and that’s where he got caught. Now Geoffrey was an extrovert and made the most of it. All credit to him. He retired from the Service and went lecturing on the experience. Jasper was a shy man in many respects, not like that anyway in public. He was not a man who would like to parade it publicly. Would he? He didn’t strike me that way.

    MM: Well, I don’t know about that. He had and continues to have a great sense of public duty. I think maybe he reacted quietly out of a sense of duty. He was treated extremely badly by the Foreign Office. I think their behaviour was absolutely shameful and disgraceful.

    WHJ: I’m glad to hear you say that. I thought I was a lone voice.

    MM: Well my voice doesn’t count for anything. But he was treated extremely badly and he felt that it was his duty to accept what the Office said. He is definitely not a shy man. Both Barbara and Jasper Cross were prominent members of the amateur dramatic society in Delhi and he’s a great performer. A lot of personality really comes over in amateur dramatics, but he had lived under a real death threat for 60 days. It may well have been something to do with the disbelief displayed by colleagues afterwards.

    WHJ: He never played much vocal part in our meetings – I saw quite a lot of him. He was always quiet; not pushing at all.

    MM: He went on to be a Deputy Under Secretary in the Department of Energy.

    WHJ: Well it wouldn’t surprise me about that. I think he’d be more at home there than in Quebec.

    MM: Possibly. A real job to do
    WHJ: Well he had a job to do and did it well, but I think he regarded himself as being a trade man, whereas our major concern there was trying to fathom Quebec politically.

    MM: So you’re back in London and they’ve asked you to go back to Canada briefly to see Colin Crowe out?

    WHJ: I had very long leave, went back to Canada, saw Colin Crowe out and then came home. I didn’t wait for the new High Commissioner. He was Peter Hayman. He had tried to persuade me to stay, leaving my family permanently in England. I was not prepared to do that.

  13. Troyhand said:

    Click to access Sindall.pdf

    [Page 7-8]
    interviewed by Malcolm McBain on Tuesday 22 April, 2008 and 26 August, 2008

    MM: Am I right in thinking that Humphrey Trevelyan was formerly Indian Civil Service?

    AS: Yes he was.

    MM: That was an interesting route in many ways.

    AS: It was because of course some of the Gulf States were administered by the British in India and not from London.

    MM: The Indian Political Service.

    AS: That’s right. And of course it was Humphrey who, having retired, was brought out of retirement when Aden was in serious trouble to be appointed Governor and to oversee the departure of the British from that place.
    Anyway, just to finish my little story, Kasem would sit with Humphrey and chat for twenty minutes, and then they and the armed group (rather reminiscent of all the Chinese guarding the Olympics flag the other day, it suddenly occurred to me) would parade through the cocktail party. Humphrey would peer between the armed guards and spot somebody, like me or one of his staff or a businessman, and summon him through for two minutes’ conversation with Kasem. And then eventually Kasem would thank the Ambassador profusely for having been at the party, and off he would go into the night.

    MM: This must have caused immense jealousy amongst other Missions.

    AS: Well, it did. They were bemused by the fact that there was this uniquely strange relationship between this dictator and the British, given everything else that had gone on. It was an example of how the British relationship with the Arabs is a complicated one. Other Ministers, I always remember, would give violent anti-British speeches at rallies. One Minister in particular attacked us and then – this was over a weekend – when he’d finished speaking at the rally, drove to the Embassy, demanded that the Consul be brought in to give him a visa because he wished to go to London the next day for some medical treatment and recreation; and he would brook no refusal.
    So it was a strange world. I, of course, was watching this partly, I suppose, from the margins as I was mainly doing my commercial work as a very junior diplomat in those days. **** We had an interesting range of colleagues there, including the Counsellor Peter Hayman, later Sir Peter Hayman, who tragically faced disgrace for paedophilia but in those days was a rather jolly, enormously engaging, clever, large Robert Morley type figure.**** He loved playing a party game called Teapots, which was a sort of guessing game. ****Eventually his triumph, I always remember, was to get the Iraqi Foreign Minister to dinner and make him play Teapots.**** I mention these things because it was indicative of the strange fabric of relationships that we had in those otherwise tragic and difficult, troubled times.

    MM: Did Humphrey Trevelyan take a particular liking to you? Or was he like that with all the members of his staff?

    AS: He was genuinely very nice to everybody. He took a particular liking to me, I think, as one or two people told me afterwards, because I’d married young and my wife had my first child there.

  14. Troyhand said:

    Times of Malta – 19 September 2005
    The very early days

    [Malta] Department of Information marks 50th anniversary
    The very early days

    The first information department was set up by the British government during the war.

    The government printing press formed part of the DOI.

    “In 1956, Mr Mintoff wanted me to be secretary of the delegations from Malta that used to attend the integration talks in Britain.”
    Mr Mintoff was negotiating with Britain for Malta to be integrated with Britain, having representatives at Westminster and Maltese employed with the British services receiving the same pay as their British counterparts.

    Ms Azzopardi and a number of other colleagues had gone to the BBC to attend a scriptwriters’ course. “At the BBC, they could not believe we wrote stories, adapted them to radio and also played a part in them.”

    Eventually, she was promoted as head of the photographic and film division. The films were in Super 8 format.

    Between 1958 and 1962, when Malta was governed from Westminster – Mr Mintoff had resigned in 1958 in protest against colonial government plans to lay off hundreds of workers – ***the British government set up a Broadcasting Authority and put a certain Peter Hayman in charge.***

    The DOI had set up a film division responsible for making documentaries. One such film was called Crafts Of An Island that was screened in the Expo ’70 in Osaka, Japan.

  15. Troyhand said:

    Click to access CAT_QH_BOOKS_P2-71_FINAL.pdf

    by Sir Peter Hayman

    Nicolas Jean-de-Dieu Soult a French general and statesman, was named Marshal of the Empire in 1804. He was one of only six officers in French history to receive the distinction of Marshal General of France. He also served as Prime Minister of France three times. A skilful military strategist whose armies were well maintained before going into battle, it was claimed that he was often found wanting tactically. Even some of his own aides queried his inability to amend a plan to take into account altered circumstances on the battlefield.

    1990, Arms & Armour Press, 0853689318,287pp, illustrations, bibliography, notes, index, Mark on inside page. good in d/w, £20.00

  16. Troyhand said:


    Hayman´s Weekly Political Letters (1959-1960)

    Almost immediately after the fortnightly political summaries were discontinued, there were serious riots in Kirkuk (July 1959); a round-up of the situation was produced on 24th July 1959. A further letter was produced the following week and this new series of reports began – not as a continuation of the official fortnightly summaries, but as unofficial letters from Peter Hayman at the British Embassy in Baghdad to the Eastern Department at the Foreign Office in London.

  17. Troyhand said:

    Click to access Instauration-1981-08-August-pt2.pdf

    Instauration – August 1981

    [Page 31]
    The big news is that Geoffrey Dickens, Conservative M.P. for Huddersfield West, has revealed in the House of Commons the identity of the “senior civil servant” involved in the case which ended in Tom O’Carroll and a couple of his accomplices being jailed. Dickens did this despite impassioned appeals by the attorney general, Sir Michael Havers, and other M.P.s not to reveal the name, which is that of Sir Peter Hayman, British High Commissioner in Canada from 1970-74. It appears that he took a flat in Linden Gardens, Notting Hill Gate, under the pseudonym of Henderson, and indulged in a lengthy correspondence with O’Carroll’s groups of paedophiles. His lawyer claims Hayman only wrote about fantasies of sex with children and did not take part in the discussions involving the sexual torture murders of young boys and girls. But when material addressed to a “Mr. Henderson” was found on a bus, it was so indecent that the police raided Hayman’s flat and found an enormous store of material, which has not been made public. Like O’Carroll, Hayman denies actually having sex with children, but it is difficult to see what otherwise was the purpose of the paedophile information exchange. O’Carroll and his accomplices have always claimed that such sex was wholly legitimate. One interesting detail: Sir Peter, whose mother was one Rosemary Blomefield, was formerly connected with the Save the Children Fund and the International Students’ House.

    [Page 22]
    Kiddie Porn Not a Crime

    The New York Court of Appeals, in probably the worst decision ever made by a federal or state court, reversed a lower court’s conviction of Paul Ira Ferber, a Times Square pornocrat, who had been arrested in 1978 for selling two films featuring young children performing sex stunts. The court’s explanation, if it could be called that, is that the films must be protected under the First Amendment, until they are found (by a lower court to be obscene by community standards (that is, by local juries). in proving obscenity in these lewd times is about as difficult as proving the existence of God, kiddie porn is now legally protected in New York.

    What may we expect next from the New York Court of Appeals? A ruling in favor of snuff films in which the woman porn star is killed on camera? Will the legal argument be that it would violate the first amendment not to kill her since this would have chilling effect on the film story and thus constitute censoreship?

    A note of interest. Alan Dershowitz, the legal beaver of the ADL, supported the Appeals court ruling in a well-publicized debate at Harvard.

    [Alan Dershowitz: good friend of paedophile Julian Epstein]

  18. Troyhand said:

    Sydney Morning Herald – 16 November 1977
    Letters to the Editor

    Lion of the ABC radicals

    SIR, I was saddened and sickened by A. McGregor’s letter (November 4) in which the virtues of Allan Ashbolt were sung.

    In a comment more significant than he knows. Mr McGregor said Mr Ashbolt told us “about the facts of life not just here, but about the world around us.” In doing so he struck on the absolute core of radical liturgy in this country, which is that the left-wing view comes from the people who have the best brains and the best moral standards, and all other views come from intellectual or moral bankrupts.

    It is particularly ironic that the Secretary of the Save the Children Fund NSW had a letter in the Herald on the same day praising the accuracy of a Herald article on Cambodia, a country which Mr Ashbolt and his intellectual and moral chieftains have assured us (over the airwaves) has the beginnings of a beautiful and blessed independent existence and about which all the talk of mass murder is contrived and incorrect.

    There is as much a difference between the truth about the stinking morass that is Cambodia and Broadband’s view of it as there is between Mr Allan Ashbolt and greatness. I wonder if Mr Clement McGregor will praise Clement Semmler in the same fashion?

    Dixon Avenue,
    Frenchs Forest.

    Sydney Morning Herald – 23 November 1977
    Lion of the ABC radicals

    SIR, Normally I would not enter an argument concerning my own capacities, but in reply to ****Mr Christopher Hayman’s**** attack (Letters, November 16) I am defending not so much myself as the ABC.

    By linking me personally with any programs Broadband may have done on Cambodia, Mr Hayman reveals an alarming ignorance of how editorial responsibility functions in the ABC.

    I could hardly be called a monarchist, yet it was my department that provided the radio coverage of the 1970 Royal Tour. I see little value in war observance rituals, yet my department has covered Anzac Day marches and ceremonies for many years.

    Must I be aligned politically, morally, socially and culturally with every opinion of every ABC Guest of Honour or Boyer Lecturer since 1969, simply because my department was responsible for these programs? Am I to be attributed individually with the multiplicity of ideas and emotions expressed over the years in the 8.50 am serial each weekday on 2BL, because my department selected and produced the novels to be read?

    If Mr Hayman wants to find out what I think about Cambodia, he will have to wait until I write or speak on the topic. If he objects to the airing of views which happen not to coincide either with his views or even with the prevailing view of any political situation, then he interprets the role of a national broadcasting service non-democratically.

    Director of Special Project Radio, ABC
    Monteith Street,

    The Save the Children article from 4 Nov 1977. Peter Hayman was on the committee for the Save the Children in England at the time.

    Sydney Morning Herald – 4 November 1977
    Saving Cambodia’s Children

    SIR. The excellent and factual article, “Death, hunger and cruelty in Cambodia” (Herald, Tuesday) emphasises what the Save the Children Fund itself knows of conditions now existing in the closed country of Cambodia, for our teams are working along the Thai border and helping refugees who have escaped or are still leaving the sad countries of Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

    The Swedish Save the Children Fund has a small team working in Hanoi, and the fund is also operating a day-care centre for small children in the capital of Laos, Vientiane.

    Now that Cambodia has opened its first foreign mission in Laos, Save the Children Fund field workers will be pressing for permission to help children in Cambodia.

    The gallantry of the people of Thailand cannot be emphasised too much, for, at great risk to their own security, they have opened their borders to the refugees, housed them as best they can, and willingly offered hospitality to the teams of relief workers from many Western countries.

    Those concerned people wishing to bring some comfort, food and medicine to the peoples of South-East Asia may make specific donations for the Thai border camps for refugees to Save the Children Fund at 250 Pitt Street, Sydney, and we will acknowledge all such donations, and be enabled to increase our teams and the work they can undertake.

    Save the Children Fund,
    NSW Division,
    Pitt Street, Sydney

    Sydney Morning Herald – 4 November 1977
    Lion of the ABC radicals

    SIR. Many sad things are happening all the time but, for me and my son Peter, the news of the retirement of Allan Ashbolt is the saddest (Herald, October 21).

    Without Allan, ABC Radio will never be the same again; I most sincerly hope that ABC people who worked with him will carry on with his great work. Thanks to him, a few of us nits “down under” learned the truth about the facts of life, not just here, but about the world around us.

    Allan was, and still is, the greatest asset to Australian radio. I literally cried when I heard the news of his retirement. He won’t be forgotten.

    A. McGregor
    Addison Avenue,

    Spies talking to each other by the looks of it.

  19. Troyhand said:

    The Canberra Times – Thursday 19 March 1981
    Knight named in paedophile case in Britain

    LONDON, Wednesday (AAP). – The retired diplomat referred to in a recent child sex case in Britain has been named as Sir Peter Hayman, 66, who was the British High Commissioner in Canada from 1970 to 1974.

    The Times reported today that Sir Peter was named in two questions tabled in the House of Commons by Conservative MP Mr Geoffrey Dickens.

    Mr Dickens decided to table the questions under parliamentary privilege, against the advice of the Attorney General, Sir Michael Havers, who had appealed to him on the grounds that someone who had not been prosecuted for an offence should not be named, unless there was a compelling reason to do so.

    Reference was made to a diplomat during the trial of Mr Tom O’Carroll, who was chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange which tried to promote sex between adults and children, and who was eventually sentenced to two years imprisonment for conspiring to corrupt public morals. Two other people were acquitted, and no charge was brought against the diplomat, who was referred to as a “senior civil servant”.

    The diplomat’s diaries, found when police raided his flat in 1978, contained pornographic fantasies. However, extensive police inquiries failed to find any evidence that the man had had any sexual experience with children. He was thought to fantasise about them, and get excitement through writing letters to others about his activities. The police raid netted 78 diaries, covering several years of activities, along with pictures of women and letters from people allegedly involved in paedophilia.

    Mr Dickens said police and other observers at the obscenity trial had been absolutely staggered when the diplomat referred to had not been charged as a result of what was found at his flat. He had been a contributing member of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

    Sir Peter and Lady Hayman live at the edge of the Oxfordshire village of Checkendon, where they have both taken part in community affairs. The couple have been noted for their help at fetes, and were noted for their cocktail parties.

    Sir Peter had been vice-chairman of the Checkendon branch of the Conservative Party until he resigned last month, saying it was time someone else took over.

    The couple worshipped at the local Anglican church, where Sir Peter is a sidesman and his wife is a member of the parish church council.

    In 1979, Sir Peter reached the semi-finals of the BBC television program ‘Mastermind’, where his specialist subjects were the marshals of Napoleon, and the life of King George V. He also once worked on a committee for the Save the Children Fund.

    He was a governor of International Students House, a trust which provides facilities for overseas students, from 1975.

    Mr Anthony Shaw, director of the house, said it was obvious that Sir Peter, who resigned in December, had done so to avoid embarrassing the organisation.

    “He was one of more than 30 governors, but you can see the smear – being in charge of young boys and girls”, he said.

    Sir Peter is still a member of the MCC, the Army and Navy and the Travellers’ Club.

    At the Travellers’ Club in Pall Mall, a spokesman said, “Unfortunately, I have to tell you he is still a member. We went through all this with the Anthony Blunt case, you know”.

    Mr Blunt, a former art adviser to the Queen, was exposed as a spy for the Soviet Union.

    It was that case that gave rise to Mr Dickens’s fears of a security risk in Sir Peter Hayman’s case.
    Mr Dickens thinks that Sir Peter’s diaries could have been used for blackmail.

    Sir Peter occupied a chain of top security jobs.

    From 1964 to 1966 he was Deputy Commandant in the British Military Government of West Berlin. In the 1950s he served on the British delegation to NATO and in 1949 he was personal assistant to the Chief Staff Officer to the Minister for Defence. He was knighted in 1971.

    At present Sir Peter and Lady Hayman are touring in Europe.

  20. Troyhand said:

    National Archives

    13 Apr 1957
    FO 371/127710/22/264
    Yugoslav attitude to the refugee problem: report from Peter Hayman, with request for further details of the scheme to allow refugees into Australia

    “He switched to the foreign office in 1954. In 15 years of service abroad, he held such posts as counsellor in Belgrade, information officer to the governor of Malta and deputy British commandant in Berlin.”

  21. Troyhand said:

    Britain, ****the Six-Day War**** and Its Aftermath
    By Frank Brenchley

    [page xviii-xix]

    It is worth remarking that in 1967 the geographical departments formed the backbone of the Foreign Office. As John Cole points out:

    When I became a diplomat in 1960, the most prestigious departments in the Foreign Office were the so-called geographical departments, those that dealt with specific areas of the world such as the Middle East or the Soviet and East European countries. The great men (and they were nearly all men) were those who advised during the Arab-Israeli wars of 1967 and 1973.

    The only ‘functional department’ closely involved in the affairs dealt with in this book was the ****United Nations (Political) Department****, whose supervising assistant under-secretary was ****Peter Hayman.****

  22. Troyhand said:


    FCO 82/264 1973 Role of the monarchy in Canada

    The Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh visited Canada twice in 1973. The first visit (in June/July) was on the advice of the Canadian Prime Minister so the FCO doesn’t think it should be paying their expenses. The British High Commissioner, Peter Hayman, writes warmly and enthusiastically about the impact of the two visits on Canadian perceptions of the role of the monarchy. He recalls that ****Jean Chretien (then Minister for Indian and Northern Affairs)**** was converted by the Queen’s previous visit from a French Canadian Republican to a strong admirer of the Queen. ****Mr Hayman also suggests that the monarch should have a residence in Canada.****

    [I wonder what’s happening with Kevin Annett’s ITCCS court case in Belgium about the royal family murdering and trafficking Indian children in Canada?]

  23. Troyhand said:

    Online Archive of California

    November 1963 BANC PIC 1959.010–NEG, Part 3, Box 202, [110063-113063]

    World Affairs Council (Director Peter Hayman) [11-12-63, 3 negatives]

    The Fresno Bee The Republican – 21 October 1963

    Edward Owensby, president of World Affairs Council, announced the council will sponsor a program November 13th at which Peter Hayman, chief of the British Information Office in New York, will discuss problems in the Near East.

  24. Troyhand said:

    National Archives

    Visit to the USA and Bermuda 16-25 Feb 1962 GAITSKELL/D62 1962

    Programme and seating list for a New York Liberal Party Luncheon in honour of HG 17 Feb 1962
    Invitation by the Governor of Bermuda to cocktails

    SCHLESINGER, Arthur (5)
    CHALK, Rodney and Ginny (4)
    ALSOP, Joseph (4)
    BRITISH INFORMATION SERVICES ****(Peter Hayman)**** (6)
    GORE, David and Lady Ormsby, and Michael Robb (British Embassy). It includes a guest list at a cocktail party for HG (13)
    WILSON, John & Mrs, HG to
    THANT, U, and Sir Patrick Dean (6)
    ***HARRIMAN, Averell,*** HG to
    ****KENNEDY, John F., HG to, on the timing of the decision on atmospheric tests.**** Draft and final letter (2 copies) and a ****’Memorandum of the United States position on atmospheric testing’**** (draft and 3 copies)
    WILLIAMS, David C. (Americans for Democratic Action). It includes a ‘Proposal for a World-Wide Democratic Initiative’ by Williams and others (4)

    Bilderberg Group Papers (on American-European relations) GAITSKELL/C294-296 1952-1954

    Bilderberg Group Papers … 1955-1962

  25. Troyhand said:


    Daily Express – Nov 25, 1983
    Express Exclusive on the dossier of shame
    that shocked the Home Secretary

    A homosexual link between Buckingham Palace
    and the sex-with-children group PIE was claimed
    yesterday in a massive dossier of evidence by Tory
    MP Mr Geoffrey Dickens.

    A sex scandal at the palace involving a 16-year-old
    boy was just one of the cases in the file handed over
    by Mr Dickens to Home Secretary Leon Brittan.

    Mr Dickens said he had been “greatly encouraged”
    by his 30-minute meeting with MR Brittan.

    The MP, who has been campaigning to outlaw the
    Paedophile Information Exchange, said: “For so long
    I have felt that I have been fighting a lone battle.

    “But the Home Secretary was equally as sickened
    about this as I am. He told me that he would investigate
    all the cases in my file.”

    Mr Brittan also told the MP that he would take action
    to fill any gaps in the law relating to child sex.

    The 16-year-old boy who worked at the Palace was
    claimed by his parents to have been corrupted by
    members of the Queen’s staff in a below-stairs
    homosexual vice ring.

    Mr Dickens said yesterday: “The boy told his parents
    he had been sexually abused by members of the Royal
    Household at the Palace.

    “I am concerned the Palace could be part of a chain
    supplying young men to paedophiles and homosexuals
    in the diplomatic service all over the world. The boy’s
    claims are backed up by another employee.”

    ****The boy worked in the Palace kitchens and as a footman.
    He was then given a job in Canada working for a top
    diplomat later named in court as a PIE deviant.”****

    Mr Dickens added: “By all accounts homosexuality
    at the Palace was at one time rife and I want to know
    if it is still the case.”

    The boy’s mother kept quiet about her son’s seduction
    for 10 years before writing to Mr Dickens supporting
    his campaign to outlaw PIE.

    The boy, named only as Anthony wrote to his parents:
    “If you knew some of the things I have done, you would
    never want to know me again.

    His mother told Mr Dickens that on a visit to the Palace
    for a staff party, she heard Anthony and his friends joking
    about how that week a senior official had run amok and
    jumped into bed with a young footman and raped him.

    “I was shocked but they just laughed about it as an everyday
    occurrence,” said the mother.

    “Anthony said, “Many of the staff are bent.’ He said I was
    a very happy hunting ground for homosexuals.”

    She claimed that below-stairs staff used to entertain various
    men – including overseas diplomats – in their Palace apartments.

    “One young cook – about the same age as Anthony – showed
    me all the gifts in his room, gold, silver and expensive clothes
    all given by grateful men,” the mother said.

    Mr Dickens, who has been investigating PIE for more than
    two years, has been threatening to name the child sex perverts
    unless the Home Secretary brought in tough new laws.

    Mr Dickens has also handed Mr Britten a one-million name
    petition and letters from other worried parents.

    [10 years before 1983 is 1973. In 1973, Sir Peter Hayman was High Commissioner to Canada.]

    “The boy worked in the Palace kitchens and as a footman.
    He was then given a job in Canada working for a top
    diplomat later named in court as a PIE deviant.”

    [In 1966, Peter Hayman was Deputy Commandant for the British Military in West Germany.]

    “From 1964 to 1966 he was Deputy Commandant in the British Military Government of West Berlin. In the 1950s he served on the British delegation to NATO and in 1949 he was personal assistant to the Chief Staff Officer to the Minister for Defence. He was knighted in 1971.”

    Look where these Palace Guardsmen transferred to…
    The Miami News – 5 September 1967
    Homosexual Probe Spreads

    LONDON (AP) – Scotland Yard detectives investigating a ring of homosexuals, in which troops of Queen Elizabeth’s household cavalry and the Welsh Guards are reported involved, are expected to fly to West Germany to question fove soldiers.
    “The five guardsmen, transferred to Germany 18 months
    ago, are named in a Yard dossier as having attended
    homosexual orgies given by men prominent in political,
    business, and theatrical circles.”

    [18 months before 5 Sept 1967 is 5 March 1966, while Hayman was in charge in Germany.]

%d bloggers like this: