Harvey Proctor’s Statement Today – and the False Claims about Tom Watson and other MPs

Below is the complete text of Harvey Proctor’s extraordinary statement today (originally posted on The Needle Blog), after having yesterday been questioned for the second time by detectives from Operation Midland, which is investigated allegations of child sex abuse linked to Westminster.

It would not in any way be my place to express a view on the truth or otherwise of the extraordinarily serious allegations detailed below – this is for the police to investigate, and either bring charges against the individual(s) alleged to have committed the offences, or if there is found to be clear evidence of false allegation or malicious intent, to bring charges against the individual(s) responsible for that.

But I want to draw attention to one thing said today by Proctor:

Those Labour Members of Parliament who have misused parliamentary privilege and their special position on these matters should apologise. They have behaved disgracefully, especially attacking dead parliamentarians who cannot defend themselves and others and they should make amends. They are welcome to sue me for libel. In particular, Mr Tom Watson, M.P. should state, outside the protection of the House of Commons, the names of ex Ministers and ex M.P.s who he feels are part of the so called alleged Westminster rent boy ring.

The definition of Parliamentary Privilege is as follows:

Parliamentary privilege grants certain legal immunities for Members of both Houses which allow them to perform their duties without interference from outside the House. The privileges are: Freedom of speech, freedom from arrest (on civil matters), freedom of access to the sovereign and that ‘the most favourable construction should be placed on all the Houses’s proceedings’. Members are immune from legal action in terms of slander but must adhere to the principles of parliamentary language.

Since Tom Watson MP made his statement on October 24th, 2012 alleging that the evidence files used to convict Peter Righton contained evidence of a high-level paedophile ring with links to a former prime minister (which Watson detailed more on his blog, not subject to parliamentary privilege), there have been several debates and select committee hearings in Parliament to do with child sexual abuse involving prominent people, most of them last year in the process leading to the setting up of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual AbuseI blogged about one of these debates here; others can easily be found on Hansard.

In none of these debates have any of the leading campaigning MPs – Tom Watson, Simon Danczuk, John Mann, Sarah Champion from Labour, ex-MPs John Hemming and Tessa Munt from the Liberal Democrats, Zac Goldsmith or Tim Loughton from the Conservatives, or Caroline Lucas from the Greens – said anything to my knowledge which could identify an MP or other prominent figure, nor anything which could not be safely repeated outside of the House of Commons. Furthermore, one should not that by no means are all of these MPs from the Labour Party, contrary to Proctor’s claim that ‘the paranoid Police have pursued an homosexual witch hunt on this issue egged on by a motley crew of certain sections of the media and press and a number of Labour Members of Parliament and a ragbag of internet fantasists’. This is a cross-party issue, and there is every reason to think that some of the allegations being investigated have the power to be extremely damaging for Labour themselves – not only those against Lord Janner or Lord Tonypandy or a minister in Tony Blair’s government alleged to have been linked to an abuse ring in Lambeth, but also those claims concerning current acting Labour Party leader Harriet Harman, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt and MP Jack Dromey in the context of the affiliations between the National Council for Civil Liberties and the Paedophile Information Exchange when all three individuals were involved with the former association at a high level (about which I have blogged plentifully elsewhere, and believe there is more information yet to become public knowledge). Furthermore, John Mann (who in December 2014 handed a dossier naming MPs and peers to the police), has been very publicly critical of Labour leadership candidate Jeremy Corbyn concerning his response to allegations of serious abuse in Islington in the 1980s. No party stands to come out well from this, nor is the campaign a partisan issue.

If Proctor does indeed turn out to be the victim of unfounded slurs, he has my every sympathy, and is entitled to full recompense in whatever form that may take. And I do not accept that those offence with which he was charged and convicted in the 1980s, leading to the end of his Parliamentary career (about which he talks more on the 1988 After Dark  discussion below) in any way relate to the truth or otherwise of what is detailed below. But his claims about politicians are unsustainable, and he must provide evidence. Where have MPs said things in Parliament which they would not repeat outside of it, and what are these things? The one case of which I am aware is by Jim Hood who named Leon Brittan in Parliament on October 14th, 2014. This is an isolated case, which none of the other campaigning MPs backed. In March, John Mann said that Harvey Proctor will be the first of many to be investigated, after it was made public that the police had questioned Proctor, but this claim was made outside Parliament.

I believe Proctor is attempting here to maliciously pin blame on Tom Watson, who I believe will undoubtedly be the best Deputy Leader that the Labour Party can have, and has done enormously courageous work campaigning on child abuse and also on disreputable media practices. This claim needs to be questioned properly and Proctor made to substantiate it. Watson has rightly made the following statement, which I wholly back:

It is not for me to judge the innocence or guilt of Harvey Proctor. That is for a jury to do, if the police inquiry yields sufficient evidence to bring a case to court.

I don’t regard allegations of child abuse as a party political matter and I’ve worked with members of all political parties to help bring about the Goddard inquiry into child sexual abuse. I have never used parliamentary privilege to name anyone accused of child abuse.

After Dark, 4/6/88

One very important point to make is that this statement has not been checked exactly with what he actually said today.





I am a private citizen. I have not held public office and I have not sought public office since May 1987. As such, I am entitled to be regarded as a private citizen. Since the General Election of 1987 I have sought a private life. I have been enjoying a full life, gainfully employed and personally happy.

This all came to an abrupt end on 4th March 2015. What now follows is a statement on my present predicament created by an unidentified person making totally untrue claims against my name. Before going any further I wish to make it clear that the genuine victims of child sexual abuse have my fullest sympathy and support and I would expect the full weight of the law to be used against anyone, be he ‘ever so high, or ever so low’, committing such odious offences. Nobody and I repeat, nobody is above the law.

2. However, I attach equal weight to justice for innocent people wrongly accused of child sexual abuse, especially when it is done anonymously. This is what is happening to me and many high profile figures, many of whom are dead and cannot answer back. This statement is necessarily lengthy and detailed and at times complicated. Please bear with me and at the end I will be prepared to answer your questions.

3. On 18th June, 2015, at my request, I was interviewed by the Metropolitan Police Murder Squad “Operation Midland”. This interview lasted over 6 hours. At the very outset I had to help the Police with my full name which they appeared not to know. It may surprise you that it was over 3 and an half months after my home was searched for 15 hours and more than 7 months after the most serious allegations were made against me that I was interviewed. I went on to cooperate fully with the Police with their investigation.

4. The allegations have been made by a person who the Police have dubbed with a pseudonym – “NICK”. He appears on television with a blacked out face and an actor’s voice. All of this is connected with alleged historical child sexual abuse in the 1970ies and 1980ies. “NICK” was interviewed by the Police in the presence of a reporter from Exaro – an odd internet news agency.

5. As a Member of Parliament I always spoke in favour of the police. I believe in law and order and I believe in equipping the police to do their job and , with my track record, it will come as a surprise that I have grave and growing concerns about the Police generally and more specifically “Operation Midland”. I have decided to share these concerns with you. I believe I am not speaking just for myself today. I hope I am not being presumptuous when I say I feel I am speaking for those who have no voice whatsoever including the dead to whom I referred moments ago.

6. Two days before my interview with the Police, my Solicitors – Sakhi Solicitors of Leicester – were sent a “disclosure” document. It set out the matters the Police wished to discuss with me. It was the first time I had known of what I had been accused. On the day of my interview I was not arrested, nor placed on Police bail, I was told I could leave the Police Station at any time and that it was a voluntary interview. I and my Solicitors had previously been told I was not a suspect.

7. At the end of the interview I was given no information as to how much longer the Police investigation would take to bring the matter to a conclusion. I think you will understand I cannot allow this matter to rest.

8. So you can gauge how angry I am and in an attempt to stop the “drip, drip, drip” of allegations by the police into the media , I now wish to share with you in detail the uncorroborated and untrue allegations that have been made against me by “NICK”. Anyone of a delicate or a nervous disposition should leave the room now.

9. The following is taken from the Police disclosure document given to my Solicitors two days before my first interview with the Police under the headings “Circumstances”, “Homicides” and “Sexual abuse”.


“ Circumstances

The victim in this investigation is identified under the pseudonym “Nick”. He made allegations to the Metropolitan Police Service in late 2014. Due to the nature of the offences alleged, “Nick” is entitled to have his identity withheld.

“Nick” stated he was the victim of systematic and serious sexual abuse by a group of adult males over a period between 1975 and 1984. The abuse was often carried out whilst in company with other boys whom were also abused by the group.

“Nick” provided names of several individuals involved in these acts including Mr HARVEY PROCTOR. He states MR PROCTOR abused him on a number of occasions which included sexual assault, buggery and torturous assault. He also states MR PROCTOR was present when he was assaulted by other adult males. Furthermore, “Nick” states he witnessed the murder of three young boys on separate occasions. He states MR PROCTOR was directly responsible for two of the allegations and implicated in the third.

The dates and locations relevant to MR PROCTOR are as follows:-


1980 – at a residential house in central London. “Nick” was driven by car to an address in the Pimlico/Belgravia area where a second boy (the victim) was also collected in the same vehicle. Both boys, aged approximately 12-years-old, were driven to another similar central London address. MR PROCTOR was present with another male. Both boys were led to the back of the house. MR PROCTOR then stripped the victim, and tied him to a table. He then produced a large kitchen knife and stabbed the child through the arm and other parts of the body over a period of 40 minutes. A short time later MR PROCTOR untied the victim and anally raped him on the table. The other male stripped “Nick” and anally raped him over the table. MR PROCTOR then strangled the victim with his hands until the boy’s body went limp. Both males then left the room. Later, MR PROCTOR returned and led “Nick” out of the house and into a waiting car.

1981-82 – at a residential address in central London. “Nick” was collected from Kingston train station and taken to a “party” at a residential address. The witness was among four young boys. Several men were present including MR PROCTOR. One of the men told the boys one of them would die that night and they had to choose who. When the boys wouldn’t decide, the men selected one of the boys (the victim). Each of the four boys including “Nick” were taken to separate rooms for “private time”. When they all returned to the same room, Nick was anally raped by MR PROCTOR and another male as “punishment”. The other males also anally raped the remaining boys. MR PROCTOR and two other males then began beating the chosen victim by punching and kicking. The attack continued until the boy collapsed on the floor and stopped moving. All of the men left the room. The remaining boys attempted to revive the victim but he was not breathing. They were left for some time before being taken out of the house and returned to their homes.

Between May and July 1979 – in a street in Coombe Hill, Kingston. Nick was walking in this area with another boy (the victim) when he heard the sound of a car engine revving. A dark-coloured car drove into the victim knocking him down. “Nick” could see the boy covered in blood and his leg bent backwards. A car pulled up and “Nick” was grabbed and placed in the car. He felt a sharp pain in his arm and next remembered being dropped off at home. He was warned not to have friends in future. “Nick” never saw the other boy again. “Nick” does not identify MR PROCTOR as being directly involved in this allegation. However, he states MR PROCTOR was part of the group responsible for the systematic sexual abuse he suffered. Furthermore, he believes the group were responsible for the homicide.

Sexual Abuse

1978-1984 – Dolphin Square, Pimlico. “Nick” was at the venue and with at least one other young boy. MR PROCTOR was present with other males.MR PROCTOR told “Nick” to pick up a wooden baton and hit the other boy. When “Nick” refused he was punished by MR PROCTOR and the other males. He was held down and felt pain in his feet. He fell unconscious. When he awoke he was raped by several males including MR PROCTOR.

1978-1981 – Carlton Club, central London, “Nick” was driven to the Carlton Club and dropped off outside. MR PROCTOR opened the door. Inside the premises were several other males. “Nick” was sexually assaulted by another male (not by MR PROCTOR on this occasion ).

1978-1981 – swimming pool in central London. “Nick” was taken to numerous ‘pool parties’ where he and other boys were made to undress, and perform sexual acts on one another. He and other boys were then anally raped and sexually abused by several men including MR PROCTOR.

1981-1982 – Large town house in London. “Nick” was taken to the venue on numerous occasions where MR PROCTOR and one other male were present. He was forced to perform oral sex on MR PROCTOR who also put his hands around “Nick’’’s throat to prevent him breathing. On another occasion at the same location, MR PROCTOR sexually assaulted “Nick” before producing a pen-knife and threatening to cut “Nick’’’s genitals.MR PROCTOR was prevented from doing so by the other male present.

1979-1984 – residential address in central London.”Nick” was taken to the venue. MR PROCTOR was present with one other male. MR PROCTOR forced “Nick” to perform oral sex on him before beating him with punches.

1978-1984 – numerous locations including Carlton Club,Dolphin Square and a central London townhouse. “Nick” described attending several ‘Christmas parties’ where other boys were present together with numerous males including MR PROCTOR. “Nick” was given whiskey to drink before being forced to perform oral sex on several men including MR PROCTOR.

MR PROCTOR will be interviewed about the matters described above and given the opportunity to provide an account.”

10. I denied all and each of the allegations in turn and in detail and categorised them as false and untrue and, in whole, an heinous calumny. They amount to just about the worst allegations anyone can make against another person including, as they do, multiple murder of children, their torture, grievous bodily harm, rape and sexual child abuse.

11. I am completely innocent of all these allegations.

12. I am an homosexual. I am not a murderer. I am not a paedophile or pederast. Let me be frank, I pleaded guilty to four charges of gross indecency in 1987 relating to the then age of consent for homosexual activity. Those offences are no longer offences as the age of consent has dropped from 21 to 18 to 16. What I am being accused of now is a million miles away from that consensual activity.

13. At the start of the interview, I was told that although the interview would be recorded by the Police both for vision and sound, I would not receive a copy of the tapes. I asked to record the interview for sound myself but my request was refused. During the interview, to ensure that “Nick” had not identified the wrong person, I asked if I could see photographs purporting to be me which had been shown to him. My request was refused. At the end of the interview I was asked if I knew my 8 alleged co conspirators whose homes it was alleged I had visited. I believe I have a good recollection and the list comprised a number of people I knew, some who I had heard of but not met and some I did not know. None of the allegations were alleged to have taken place at my home and I have not visited the homes of any of the “gang”.

14. The list included the names of the late Leon Brittan and the late Edward Heath.

15. If it was not so serious, it would be laughable.

16. Edward Heath sacked me from the Conservative Party’s parliamentary candidates’ list in 1974. Mrs Thatcher restored me to the list 18 months later. Edward Heath despised me and he disliked my views particularly on limiting immigration from the New Commonwealth and Pakistan and my opposition to our entry into and continued membership of what is now know as the E.U. ; I opposed his corporate statist views on the Economy. I despised him too… He had sacked the late Enoch Powell, my political “hero” from the Shadow Cabinet when I was Chairman of the University of York Conservative Association. I regarded Enoch as an intellectual giant in comparison with Heath.

17. The same Edward Heath, not surprisingly, would never speak to me in the House of Commons but would snort at me as he passed me by in a Commons corridor. The feeling was entirely mutual.

18. Now I am accused of doing some of these dreadful things in his London house as well; a house to which I was never invited and to which Heath would never have invited me and to which I would have declined his invitation.

19. The same Edward Heath’s home with CCTV, housekeeper, private secretary, chauffeur, police and private detectives – all the trappings of a former Prime Minister – in the security conscious days of the IRA’s assault on London.

20. It is so farfetched as to be unbelievable. It is unbelievable because it is not true. My situation has transformed from Kafka- esque bewilderment to black farce incredulity.

21. I have nothing to hide and nothing to fear. I appeal to any witness who truthfully can place me at any of the former homes of Edward Heath or Leon Brittan at any time to come forward now. I appeal to any witness who can truthfully say I committed any of these horrible crimes to come forward now.

22. The “gang” is also alleged to have included Lord Janner ( a former Labour M.P.), Lord Bramall (Former Chief of the General Staff) , the late Maurice Oldfield (Former Head of Secret Intelligence Service – MI6), the late Sir Michael Hanley ( Director General of the Internal Security Service – MI5), General Sir Hugh Beach (Master-General of the Ordnance) and a man named – Ray Beech. I did not move in such circles. As an ex Secondary Modern School boy from Yorkshire, I was not a part of the Establishment. I had no interest being part of it. I cannot believe that these other 8 people conspired to do these monstrous things. I certainly did not.

23. Yesterday I was interviewed again by the Metropolitan Police Murder Squad for 1 hour 40 minutes. It was a voluntary interview. I was free to go at any time. I was not arrested. I am not on bail. Unhelpfully, the second disclosure document was given to me some 20 minutes after yesterday’s  interview was supposed to have started rather than last Friday as had been promised.  My Solicitors were told by the Police it was ready but had to be signed off by superior officers on Friday.  The Metropolitan Police are either inefficient or doing it by design. Whatever else, it is  inept and an unjust way to treat anyone.   During yesterday’s interview,  I was shown a photograph of “Nick” aged about 12. I did not recognise him. I was shown computer generated e fit images of 2 of the alleged murder victims created by “Nick”.  They looked remarkably similar  to each other but one with blonde hair and one dark brown. I did not recognise either image. I was asked if I knew Jimmy Saville. I told them I did not. “Nick” alleges – surprise surprise – that Saville attended the sex “parties”. I was asked if I knew a number of people including Leslie Goddard and Peter Heyman. I did not these two. I was asked if I knew well, a doctor – unnamed. Apparently “Nick” alleges the doctor was a friend of mine and allegedly he turned up to repair the damage done to the boys when they were abused at these “parties”. I could not help there . I was asked if I could recognise images of the pen knife mentioned earlier. It was suggested it was Edward Heath who persuaded me not to castrate “Nick” with it. I was obviously so persuaded by Mr Heath’s intervention that I placed the pen knife in “Nick’s” pocket ready for him to present it to the Metropolitan police over 30 years later as “evidence”. I could not identify the knife. I have never had a pen knife. I was asked if I visited Elm Guest House in Rocks Lane, Barnes. I wondered when that elephant in the room would be mentioned by the Metropolitan police. I am sorry to have to disappoint the fantasists on the internet but I did not visit Elm Guest House. I was unaware of its existence.  The so called “guest list” which makes its appearance on the net must be a fake.

24. During my first interview I was told that the Police were investigating to seek out the truth. I reminded them on a number of occasions that their Head of “Operation Midland”, Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald had said on television some months ago “ I believe what “NICK” is saying as credible and true “. This statement is constantly used and manipulated by Exaro and other Media to justify their position.

25. This remark is very prejudicial to the police inquiry and its outcome. It is not justice and breaches my United Kingdom and Human Rights. This whole catalogue of events has wrecked my life, lost me my job and demolished 28 years of my rehabilitation since 1987.

26. The Police involved in “Operation Midland” are in a cleft stick of their own making. They are in a quandary. Support the “victim” however ludicrous his allegations or own up that they got it disastrously wrong but risk the charge of a cover up. What do I think should happen now?


I should be arrested, charged and prosecuted for murder and these awful crimes immediately so I can start the process of ridiculing these preposterous allegations in open court


“NICK” should be stripped of his anonymity and prosecuted for wasting police time and money, making the most foul of false allegations and seeking to pervert the course of justice. Those who have aided and abetted him should also be prosecuted. “NICK” should be medically examined to ensure he is of sound mind.

27. Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald should resign from his position as Head of “Operation Midland”. He should resign or be sacked. But as the Metropolitan Police is a bureaucratic “organisation” I suggest, to save face, he is slid sideways to be placed in control of Metropolitan London parking, traffic, jay walking or crime prevention. He too should be medically examined to ensure he is of sound mind.

28. An investigation should be launched into “Operation Midland” and its costs. Detectives’ expense claims should be analysed and a full audit carried out by independent auditors.

29. Those Labour Members of Parliament who have misused parliamentary privilege and their special position on these matters should apologise. They have behaved disgracefully, especially attacking dead parliamentarians who cannot defend themselves and others and they should make amends. They are welcome to sue me for libel. In particular, Mr Tom Watson, M.P. should state, outside the protection of the House of Commons, the names of ex Ministers and ex M.P.s who he feels are part of the so called alleged Westminster rent boy ring.

30. Lady Goddard’s Inquiry should examine “Operation Midland’s” methods so as to sift genuine historical child sexual abuse from the spurious.

31. “Operation Midland” should be wound up by the Metropolitan Police Commissioner who should also apologise at the earliest opportunity. On the 6th August 2015, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe shed crocodile tears criticising the Independent Police Complaints Commission and Wiltshire Police for naming Edward Heath as a suspect. He said it was not “fair” and his own force would not do such a thing. This is very disingenuous. When his Police officers were searching my Home and before they had left, the Press were ringing me asking for comment. I was identified. They had told “Nick” of the search who passed on the information to his press friends. The Metropolitan police have also told the press that they were investigating Heath and Brittan and others. Sir Bernard should resign for the sin of hypocrisy. If he does not, it will not be long before he establishes “Operation Plantagenet” to determine Richard III’s involvement in the murder of the Princes in the Tower of London.

32. Superintendent Sean Memory of Wiltshire Police should explain why he made a statement about Edward Heath in front of his former home in Salisbury and who advised him to select that venue. He should also resign.

33. Leon Brittan was driven to his death by police action. They already knew for 6 months before his death, on the advice of the DPP, that he would not face prosecution for the alleged rape of a young woman. But they did not tell him. They just hoped he would die without having to tell him. The Superintendent in charge of his investigation should resign.

34. The Police should stop referring automatically to people who make statements of alleged Historic child sexual abuse as “victims”. They should refer to them as “complainants” from the French “to lament” which would be more appropriate. Parliament should pass laws to better balance the right to anonymity of “victims” and the “accused”. Parliament should reinstate in law the English tradition of “innocence before being found guilty” which has been trashed in recent months by certain sections of the Police, the DPP, MPs, Magistrates and the Courts themselves.

35. I have not just come here with a complaint. I have come with the intention of showing my face in public as an innocent man. I have come to raise my voice as an aggrieved subject now deeply concerned about the administration of Justice. What has become increasingly clear about Police investigations into historical child sexual abuse is that it has been bungled in years gone by and is being bungled again NOW. The moment has come to ask ourselves if the Police are up to the task of investigating the apparent complexities of such an enquiry ? These allegations merit the most detailed and intellectually rigorous application.

36. What is clear from the last few years of police activity driven by the media, fearful of the power of the internet and the odd M.P. here and there is that the overhaul of the Police service up and down the country is now urgently required. We need “Super cops” who have been University educated and drawn from the professions. Such people could be of semi retirement status with a background in the supervision of complex, criminal investigations. These people could be drawn from the law, accountancy and insolvency practices. Former Justices of the Peace could chair some of these investigations. Adequate incentives should be provided to recruit them.

37. I speak for myself and, as a former Tory M.P. with an impeccable record in defending the Police, I have now come to believe that that blind trust in them was totally misplaced. What has happened to me could happen to anyone. It could happen to you.

38. In summary, the paranoid Police have pursued an homosexual witch hunt on this issue egged on by a motley crew of certain sections of the media and press and a number of Labour Members of Parliament and a ragbag of internet fantasists. There are questions to ask about what kind of Police Force do we have in Britain today. How can it be right for the Police to act in  consort with the press with routine  tip offs of House raids, impending arrests and the like. Anonymity is given to anyone prepared to make untruthful accusations of child sexual abuse whilst the alleged accused are routinely fingered publicly without any credible evidence first being found. This is not justice. It is an abuse of power and authority.

39. In conclusion, I wish to thank my Solicitors Mr Raza Sakhi and Mr Nabeel Gatrad and my family and friends for their support without which I would not have been able to survive this onslaught on my character and on my life.

I am prepared to take questions.



19 Comments on “Harvey Proctor’s Statement Today – and the False Claims about Tom Watson and other MPs”

  1. l8in says:

    Reblogged this on L8in.

  2. […] Harvey Proctor’s Statement Today – and the False Claims about Tom Watson and other … Judith Butler on unthinking application of ‘theory’ (and Philip Auslander) […]

  3. G says:

    Ah ha, good old After Dark. 90 shows (I think) over 16 years, a quick Wikipedia hunt produces these which might be relevant:-

    22 May 1987
    Do The British Love Their Children?
    Chantal Cuer
    John Rae, Linda Bellos, Germaine Greer, Gordon Whiteley, Russell Hoban, Diane Caw, Sarah Coomaraswamy

    30 April 1988
    Bewitched, Bothered or Bewildered?
    Tony Wilson
    Moira Woods, Olivia Durdin-Robertson, Jack Shackleford, Jack Dover Wellman, Audrey Harper, Margot Adler, Trevor Turner

    9 July 1988
    After Cleveland
    Trevor Hyett
    Beatrix Campbell, Shirley Edwards, Ray Wyre, A father from Cleveland, Ralph Underwager, Simon Court, ‘John’, Raine Roberts

    16 September 1989
    What Do We Do With Sex Offenders?
    Helena Kennedy
    Gerald Silverman, John Coker, Ray Wyre, ‘Peter’, Maurice White, Nell McCafferty, Michael Bettsworth

    9 February 1991
    After Rochdale
    Tony Wilson
    Beatrix Campbell, Andy Croall, Her Honour Jean Graham Hall, Sherrill Mulhern, John Shirley, Deborah Cameron, Wendy Lindsay, Bill Thompson

    21 January 1995
    Ireland: Sex & Celibacy, Church & State
    Helena Kennedy
    Garret FitzGerald, Gabriel Daly, Tom Stack, Eddie Humphries, Helena O’Donoghue, Emily O’Reilly, Mary Kenny, Richard Sipe, Sinéad O’Connor

    1 March 2003
    Child Protection: How Far Should We Go?
    Helena Kennedy
    Esther Rantzen, Tom O’Carroll, Bill Thompson, June Taylor, Jeremy Coid, Peter Garsden, Christian Wolmar

  4. Bandini says:

    I am afriad, Mr Pace, that a more careful reading of what Proctor said would have been warranted before writing this post:

    “…who have misused parliamentary privilege AND their special position on these matters should apologise.”

    At the risk of being accused of semantic pin-balancing, I suggest that the word ‘and’ was used where ‘or’ would have better served, as he was clearly railing against not only those politicos who had abused parlimentary privelege but ALSO those who had abused their ‘special position’ (which affords them an often-unwarranted influence on public discourse/the media).

    But back to ‘parlimentary privilege’ first.

    Jim Hood, Labour MP, used PP to smear a still-living Leon Brittan here:

    Simon Danczuk, Labour MP, used PP to make the most cretinous accusations against a still-living Greville Janner here:
    For his ‘campaigning’ efforts, the idiot was apparently rewarded with a £10,000 payment from The Sun. His unhinged-but-lucrative outburst came whilst the world waited for the review into the original decision by the CPS to not prosecute Janner, and was so wrong on so many levels that I don’t even have the energy to list them. Anyone continuing to support this fool deserves everything they get. And everyone else deserves far, far better. He is a disgrace.

    So, two clear examples of PP being used to explicitly identify still-living individuals.

    Proctor was perhaps foolish to concentrate on Labour, though, as others have similarly set sail on the same foolish course, for example, Zac Goldsmith.

    It was Zac Goldsmith, Conservative MP, who whilst lauding the efforts of that ‘odd internet news agency’ Exaro – and in particular that odd individual David Hencke – spoke in Parliament about a photograph of an ex-Minister which had ‘disappeared’. All the world knew about whom he was speaking – the still-living Leon Brittan – as the source of his bullshit was a man who had publicly named him already. Chris Fay.

    Hold this thought for a second, eh? Internet fantaloon has crackpot evidence-less smear broadcast from inside Parliament by an MP – as if it were FACT. In other words, Goldsmith used his ‘special position’ to bolster the most ludicrous gossip from a proven liar.
    Apologise? He should indeed do so. And then he should resign. He is a disgrace.

    What is also a disgrace is the way that supposedly serious journalists/politicians/others have knowingly allowed rumour & gossip to spread – frequently being the SOURCE of the rubbish themselves – and then sat back & waited for it to establish itself in the nuttersphere as a ‘fact(oid)’. Eventually, it spills over into more ‘respectable’ areas & they leap upon it as ‘proof’ to justify actions such as those listed above. I touched on this here:
    So, when Tom Watson MP says that…

    “I have never used parliamentary privilege to name anyone accused of child abuse.”

    … he is being incredibly disingenous. He didn’t have to NAME anyone, as everyone knew already to whom he was referring. The groundwork had been done. Teamwork, eh? Off with their heads. The lot of ’em.

    • Ian Pace says:

      I already mentioned the case of Jim Hood. As for Danczuk, I need to check if he made those claims outside of Parliament as well; it’s worth bearing in mind that he made those claims on June 23rd – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11694195/Lord-Greville-Janner-violated-raped-and-tortured-children-in-the-Houses-of-Parliament.html , and by three days later, it was already being reported that the decision not to prosecute was going to be overturned – http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/26/cps-decision-not-to-prosecute-lord-janner-to-be-overturned . After this point, one would expect that politicians would not make any further comments which might prove prejudicial (beforehand they needed to assert the strength of the case, as they believed it, in order to argue why prosecution should go ahead).

      As far as the Zac Goldsmith case is concerned, I can see that may be a borderline case of Parliamentary Privilege, but would have to check to be sure he has not said anything similar outside the House.

      • Bandini says:

        Then I’m afraid I’ll have to level the charge of being incredibly disingenous against yourself, too, Mr Pace.

        As pointed out, Proctor was NOT complaining solely about the use/abuse of parlimentary privilege but also the abuse of their ‘special position’. He makes a point about their attacks on the dead, the dead who can be freely slandered without recourse to the use of PP:

        “They have behaved disgracefully, especially attacking dead parliamentarians who cannot defend themselves and others and they should make amends.”

        There is no need to check anything, really, is there? We all knew to whom they were referring, in the same way we all know who the “ex Lib-Dem MP” is. They knew what they were doing.

        Your point about Danczuk is quite incredible. Are you suggesting that the appalling liar’s intervention (a) was responsible for an about-turn in the charging-decision and that (b) this would be a ‘good thing’? I think you are. Astonishing.

        Those “False Claims about Tom Watson and other MPs” are not false at all. They are true. Demonstrably so.

        • Ian Pace says:

          ‘He makes a point about their attacks on the dead, the dead who can be freely slandered without recourse to the use of PP:
          “They have behaved disgracefully, especially attacking dead parliamentarians who cannot defend themselves and others and they should make amends.”’

          Nor can Savile defend himself either. Would that mean all those who take up allegations against him are also behaving disgracefully?

          ‘We all knew to whom they were referring, in the same way we all know who the “ex Lib-Dem MP” is.’

          Who is ‘we’? A small number of people who are active campaigners on this likely know certain names, yes, but I doubt many of the wider public do. The names only gain wider currency when there is an arrest or the police announce an investigation. If you are arguing that some of the police tip-offs to media when about to make a raid are untoward, I wouldn’t disagree. But that’s a different issue to politicians.

          Danczuk: I in no sense accept he is an ‘appalling liar’, and I do think that the interventions of him and others played a part in putting on the pressure for a reversal of Alison Saunders’ decision, yes. And yes, I am glad that such a decision was reversed, as there is now a good chance that a ‘trial of the facts’ will go some way towards establishing the truth or otherwise of these very serious allegations against a senior politician.

          As far as Tom Watson is concerned, which parliamentary statement do you think identified someone in a way which couldn’t equally be said of statements made outside of Parliament?

          • Bandini says:

            Savile? All those who blindly believe allegations against him and repeat them as if they were proven fact are, in my opinion, behaving disgracefully, yes. In particular, the media has shown itself to be interested only in muck-spreading & not in rational thought.
            Very many of the allegations against him have been shown to be completely false, yet the media persists with its lies.

            One interesting point arising from the current Heath madness – another dead man – is that the police are supposedly investigating the claims against him. This is in contrast to the Savile-case, when it was made plain that no proper investigation would ever take place. Surely the hordes of ‘campaigners’ should have insisted that the great bogeyman – the most prolific sex-offender in the history of the world ever – have his ALLEGED crimes investigated only if to bring to justice all those many other people who must have assisted him in some way. But no, let’s just “believe” what every crackpot dreams up… and now we have Proctor having to answer police questions about Jimmy Savile…

            The Savile-case is far too convoluted to go into here but I will offer the following article from the excellent work of Moor Larkin. As a left-leaner you might be interested in Savile’s battle against the encroaching horror of P.F.I. in the N.H.S. The mainstream-media/others will persist in telling us that he was a degenerate clown interested solely in accessing hospitals to abuse – the facts paint quite a different picture:

            Ex Lib-Dem MP? ‘We’ is anyone who has bothered to spend 60-seconds asking Google to reveal the identity of someone accused via the media (press, tv, social-media, etc). Once again, “they” have made sure that “we” know who they are talking about. It hasn’t been an accidental slip that has us all knowing who supposedly pranced around in a forest at midnight, guarded by uniformed police, whilst abusing small children.

            Danczuk? Oh dear. Seriously? If you do not accept that he is an appalling liar I can only assume that this is down to you believing him to be a rather good one. He certainly has had plenty of financial success off the back of his nonsense.

            Danczuk lied about being approached by a Conservative minister.
            Danczuk lied about the book that carries his name (which he did not write).
            Danczuk lied about meeting a witness to an alleged act by Cyril Smith.
            Danczuk lied about Smith ‘featuring’ in a training-video as a paedophile, watched by a hundred coppers.
            Danczuk lied to his wife. Personal, eh? He truly deserves it.

            Danczuk’s rubbish is of such a low quality that it doesn’t even merit the desciption ‘canteen gossip’. We can be sure of this, as the police DID investigate his stupid claims, and the supposed source – a canteen worker! – unsurprisingly could not be found. Poof! Vanished in a puff of smoke!

            The notion that such an unremitting fraud should hold sway in influencing ANYTHING, let alone a question of JUSTICE, is completely lost on me. He is a time wasting, resource spending, self interested buffoon.

            Your final point has me scratching my head (“As far as Tom Watson is concerned, which parliamentary statement do you think identified someone in a way which couldn’t equally be said of statements made outside of Parliament?”).
            I’ve made it plain that in my opinion Proctor was talking about general behaviour, not solely actions taking place within Parliament. I therefore don’t see that your question has any relevance. An elected representative should behave him or herself in a fitting manner both inside & outside the chamber.

            (For what it’s worth, Watson appears statesman-like when compared to the egregious Danczuk, Mann, Goldsmith, etc.)

  5. tdf says:


    If you want my advice don’t waste any more time arguing with this ‘Bandini’ person, he’s a denialist/conspiracy theorist (the idea that all allegations of VIP abuse from Savile onwards are concocted is in itself an extreme form of conspiracy theory).

    • Bandini says:

      Alan Partridge once famously stated that:

      “Dere’s more to Oireland dan dis.”

      Unfortunately, in the case of TangoDeltaFoxtrot, there really isn’t that much more to him dan dis:

      It’s no surprise to see that – once again – the reply was penned at an ungodly hour. I’m scratching my head wondering how on earth I could be BOTH a denialist AND conspiracy theorist (but please don’t think I’m asking for an explanation) and “the idea that all allegations of VIP abuse from Savile onwards are concocted” is such a ridiculous statement as to be unworthy of my time in rebutting.

      If there was an ounce of decency in TDF’s body he would, perhaps, now unequivocally confirm that what brought about such vilification from the bumbling ‘campaigners’ – my suggestion that a sixties pornographer being involved in an enormous Elm-conspiracy was, to put it mildly, an enormous red-herring – has proven to be true.

      That that red-herring was pushed by the same frauds behind the ‘list’ ought to have raised a suspicion or two, but the doughty ‘campaigners’ just can’t help themselves, putting their fingers in their ears & la-la-laaing their lives away.

      A principle pusher of the load of old crap is now comically lambasting Exageratto’s output, gritting his teeth & praying that no one will notice the massive mote in his own eye – the spreading of lies, now belatedly admitted as being “complete crap” (Why were the foul slurs corrected so very belatedly? Because: “It seemed unnecessary before.” Oh dear.)

      TDF might well recall – when his hangover wears off, perhaps – that from the beginning I have been interested in charges being brought for conspiring to pervert the course of justice. I continue to cross my fingers & welcome the sudden eruption of similar calls in the press & elsewhere. Let us hope that they follow the evidence wherever it leads, eh? Without fear or favor…

  6. tdf says:


    You know perfectly well that those PM’s were sent under provocation, due to your creepy posts aimed at the mainly female contributors on that thread (which I note continued in my absence from that forum – do you want to share us with your particularly vile post directed at a female campaigner just before Christmas last year? Nah, thought not.)

    I can confirm, incidentally, that you still make my skin crawl. If you ever make it over to the Emerald Isle, do give us a shout, me oul mucker, and I’ll happily point out to you the best place from which to take a running jump into the Liffey.


    • Bandini says:

      Any & everyone is welcome to produce the ‘evidence’ of my making “creepy posts aimed at the mainly female contributors on that thread”! What a truly silly thing to claim. Pathetic, even.

      Mainly female? Really? I have/had no interest in the sex of anyone. Desperate barrel-scraping & a pitiful attempt at deflection.

      [Content identifying an individual deleted]

      Deliberately defaming someone – me, in this case – by ‘electronic means’ or otherwise really was a little naughty. I’m sorry to disappoint anyone fooled by these charlatans, but I’m really not a child-kidnapping paedophile with possible links to murder/’snuff’ films. (I wonder if the ‘threat’ to have me tracked-down by associates ever came to pass…)

      Whilst doing the above the multi-tasking maestro also sought to round-up victims of child abuse for both the PT and the non-existent Bill Baloney “inquiry”, lying that distinguished legal eagles were working with him (ho ho ho!). I feel I was justified in responding in a light-hearted manner to the wretched & undeclared interest of a gossip-spreading forum-poster in an inquiry-undermining ‘tribunal’. God help anyone unlucky enough to have fallen into their paws.

      P.S. The reference to ‘mistletoe & wine’ was down to the fearless bullshitters ‘celebrating’ the search of Cliff Richards’ house with champagne; apparently, they’d been “waiting years” for that magical moment. What charmers!

      P.P.S. I haven’t visited the forum in question since making the post above. I could, however, continue to do so, never having been banned, unlike some! Manners go a long way in this world…

      P.P.P.S. I am afraid, dear reader, that the following failed to produce the required response:

      “If there was an ounce of decency in TDF’s body he would, perhaps, now unequivocally confirm that what brought about such vilification from the bumbling ‘campaigners’ – my suggestion that a sixties pornographer being involved in an enormous Elm-conspiracy was, to put it mildly, an enormous red-herring – has proven to be true.”

      Some people just don’t ‘do’ apologies.

      • Bandini says:

        Mr Pace, in light of the redactions to the above post, can I ask in the interests of fairness & clarity that you confirm the following:

        1) that the “Content identifying an individual” was provided after being ‘challenged’ to do so.
        2) that the “Content identifying an individual” was information freely available.

        (I would not be so foolish as to expose either yourself or myself to charges of ‘hacking’, for example.)

        I am a little surprised, to be honest. I’m minded of the following two cases:

        1) the former publicly-funded assistant of Simon Danczuk MP, and sole-author of the book which fraudulently also carries the name of Danczuk The Liar, was exposed for having used a number of ‘alters’ to attack & defame his paymaster’s political enemies in forums, etc.

        “Mr Baker’s methods have at times been controversial, during the 2010 election campaign he was exposed as having a number of accounts on internet forums and using those accounts to support Mr Danczuk and attack his opponents and critics.”


        2) the history re-writing Grant Shapps MP exposed:

        “His use of the pen names Michael Green and Sebastian Fox attracted controversy in 2012. Shapps denied having used the pseudonym after entering Parliament and, in 2014, threatened legal action against a constituent who had stated on Facebook that he had. In February 2015 he told LBC Radio presenter Shelagh Fogarty, “Let me get this absolutely clear…I don’t have a second job and have never had a second job while being an MP. End of story.” In March 2015 Shapps admitted to having had a second job whilst being an MP and practising business under the pen name.”


        Both are people who had voluntarily decided to enter into public life, both disingenous users of multiple IDs. As, of course, is the subject of the pertinent information which you chose to remove.

        A recap: a publicly-declared member on a ‘steering committee’ of a ‘Tribunal’ into CSA – touting for donations but supported by one of the largest firms of CSA personal-injury ambulance-chasers (“Hugh James solicitors are pleased to provide advice and support to the UKCSAPT “) had an undisclosed role whipping-up madness & hysteria on forum whilst ‘pimping’ the ‘tribunal’ to possible claimants.

        Not only that, but a fellow member of said ‘steering committee’ is ALSO a solicitor at the same firm, and that…

        “Alan is… …a director for the Association of Child AbusebLawyers [sic] (ACAL). ACAL is a support group set up by solicitors and other professionals involved in the field of obtaining compensation for victims of abuse.”

        If this is uncomfortable reading for some, then too bad. It is as relevant as the exposure of Baker & Shapps. And when the history – unredacted – is written of this collective mental-meltdown, it will, I imagine, figure.

    • Bandini's Carer says:

      My sincerest apologies, Bandini knows he is not allowed on the computer unless I am with him. Under normal circumstances he just sits in his bedroom rocking in his deckchair, staring at the España poster from 1968. He sometimes just sits and strokes his sombrero, a gift I brought back to him from Blackpool. We never found out what he did with the rock, but we suspect we know.
      Again, my apologies

      • tdf says:

        Really, no apology necessary – I’m sure he must be rather a handful, and after all, the old duffer’s contributions are quite funny at times (granted, more in the ‘funny peculiar’ than ‘funny ha-ha’ sense).

        Contemplating Bandini’s recent online activities, and in particular his association with the aforementioned blogger and former Bryn Estyn resident (except on the days when he’s decided he wasn’t there at all), a certain Irish expression springs to mind: “aithníonn ciaróg, ciaróg eile”. The English saying “birds of a feather flock together” is a close equivalent, but the strict literal translation “an insect recognises its own type” strikes me as particularly appropriate in this case… ho ho ho!

  7. tdf says:

    “P.P.S. I haven’t visited the forum in question since making the post above. I could, however, continue to do so, never having been banned, unlike some! Manners go a long way in this world… ”

    Oddly though, the moderators found it necessary to remove the post, didn’t they? So I guess I can’t have been the only one to find it not humorous and light-hearted, but rather creepy.

    For the sake of objective observers, I am going to go back to the matter of the PM’s regarding Twitter. (incidentally, I believe it is considered a breach of internet etiquette, at best, to publish PM’s sent and received on a discussion forum, to resurrect them for public consumption on a completely different and unrelated internet blog is practically unheard of, but never mind.)

    I was at that time almost entirely ignorant of the mechanics of how the Twitter social media platform operated. I had mistakenly assumed that one had to have an account – or access to one – in order to view Tweets, but I now realise that of course anyone with an internet connection can see Tweets, unless a Tweeter chooses to ‘protect’ their account.

    You had made several references in your posts on that forum to tweets, mainly, IIRC, criticising or trying to catch out, on the basis of possibly unreliable or disputed information in their tweets, various anti-CSA campaigners and media people. Being well aware of your modus operandi, given I had sight of your posts on the Icke forum, I had mistakenly assumed that you yourself had a Twitter account, and was anxious to warn anti-CSA campaigners active on Twitter, so that they could take the necessary steps, i.e., block or mute your account or whatever. To pretend that you had not encouraged a view that suggested you were an active Twitter participant yourself is, to use a word you’ve become fond of, rather disingenous of you.

    Incidentally, one admits to being rather curious as to why these days you are pally (in the online world) with a man who has variously stated (on television, no less) that he witnessed a prominent, now deceased politician viciously abuse fellow young residents of the care home Bryn Estyn and subsequently announced on his blog that his time in Bryn Estyn was “uneventful”. It strikes me as rather disingenous of you that you seem rather incurious as to the veracity of the stories woven by this person, while being keen to attack the character of others who in your view have acted in a disingenous manner in the anti-CSA ‘arena’.

    Finally, I must apologise and humbly beg forgiveness for whatever it is that you think I’ve done wrong (being ignorant as, of Spring 2014, of the basics of Twitter operations, apparently, though I’m at complete loss as to why it is you think I should apologise to YOU for that oversight).

  8. […] Harvey Proctor’s Statement Today – and the False Claims about Tom Watson and other MPs (28/5/15) […]

  9. Pando says:

    Looks like Tom Watson aims have finally been proven false today. Not before the party internal damage was done, but then that’s how smear works isn’t it. Toms actions methods constantly highlight an overly sinister and underhand character. The very embodyment of everything people mistrust about politicians.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s