It is also inconceivable that Dickenson gave Brittan the only copy of the dossier. Even if the Home Office didn't make at least one copy (and it is reasonable to suppose one would have been made) surely Dickenson must have kept at least one copy, possibly with drafts, notes, letters etc, in a place of safety "just in case". What happened to all that material?
The Sunday People revealed two weeks ago how Mr Dickens gave one dossier to the Home Office in 1984 but it apparently vanished.
The other was kept by the colourful MP for Littleborough and Saddleworth until his death at the age of 63.
That copy was ordered to be destroyed by Mr Dickens’ widow Norma who thought it was “too sensitive” to keep in the family home. She died last year.
Their son Barry, 49, told the Sunday People: “My father’s file was destroyed after his death in 1995 because my mother considered it too sensitive to have hanging around the house. It had been many years since Dad had handed the other copy to the Home Secretary and unfortunately nothing had come of it.”
Christ.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-07-02/mp-professionally-burgled-after-submitting-dossier/
As someone else said, this is starting to look like an enormous zit which only needs a little squeeze.
Dickens is reported as saying, when he passed his dossier to Brittan, that if he wasn't satisfied that action was being taken, then he would name 8 high-level, important names...which he didn't. But it doesn't sound like he would have been satisfied with what action was taken eitherAnyway, at some point he was about to hold a press conference to discuss paedophile stuff. But at the very last minute he was forced to change the topic of the press conference, to admit to having an affair and state that he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later). The timing of the press being tipped off about the affair stunk.
I'll bet there's some real modtwitch going on on this thread.that roughly sums up my thoughts, or at least as far as i think it's legally advisable to post them...
Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd. I do remember him announcing his dossier and making pronouncements but, as you say, it dribbling away to nothing. I also recall a personal wtf about him making serious and I'm sure heartfelt allegations against the 'establishment' on this. However, like many others I had a vague disconnect on the whole thing, just couldn't associate him with anything significant. Looks like I was wrong.I suppose I will repeat what I said ages ago about my own research into stuff that happened to Geoffrey Dickens MP, which I gleaned from a couple of newspaper archives.
He was a well-known anti-paedophile campaigner back in the day. Apart from handing dossier(s) to the home office, the other thing that gained him notoriety was the naming of diplomat Peter Hayman in parliament. You can search the web for more info on that.
Anyway, at some point he was about to hold a press conference to discuss paedophile stuff. But at the very last minute he was forced to change the topic of the press conference, to admit to having an affair and state that he was leaving his wife (he went back to her later). The timing of the press being tipped off about the affair stunk.
Of course they didn't "lose" it.Thanks Elbows - that clears up the question about what happened to Dickens copy of the dossier.
It is interesting to note that the Home Office said in its 2013 review those parts of the dossier where there was thought to be "realistic potential" for further investigation were passed on to the police while other elements of the dossier were not retained.
This suggests that, unless the only Home Office copy was physically split into two separate parts, at least one other copy would have been made.
In any case MI5 almost certainly would have a complete copy indicating that, apart from the Dickens' original, more than one copy must have existed.
While it is barely credible that the Home Office could "lose" one copy of the file, it is impossible to believe they/MI5 could lose two, or possibly more, copies.
It was about this time that Dickens had a 'dossier' on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. i don't know if it was the same dossier but, if it was, that might explain why it didn't go much further.Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd. I do remember him announcing his dossier and making pronouncements but, as you say, it dribbling away to nothing. I also recall a personal wtf about him making serious and I'm sure heartfelt allegations against the 'establishment' on this. However, like many others I had a vague disconnect on the whole thing, just couldn't associate him with anything significant. Looks like I was wrong.
Fuck, Geoffrey Dickens, the campaigning MP Tom Watson dreams of becoming!It was about this time that Dickens had a 'dossier' on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. i don't know if it was the same dossier but, if it was, that might explain why it didn't go much further.
The dossier that was passed to Leon Brittan was in 1983. The Satanic obsession came later....It was about this time that Dickens had a 'dossier' on Satanic Ritual Child Abuse. i don't know if it was the same dossier but, if it was, that might explain why it didn't go much further.
All glory, Laud and yer'honour?Derek Laud, eh?
All glory, Laud and yer'honour?
The "right to be forgotten" must be one of the fastest-abused laws in history - tens of thousands of takedowns already, even an article by Robert Peston.
Of course, maybe we should look at how Google has become the de facto gatekeeper of the internet. (In the meantime, we should all be saving bookmarks to stuff and not thinking "oh well I'll just Google it if I want to find it again".)
True, a much better idea - HTML source takes trivial amounts of storage.Saving the whole document might not be a bad idea.
Your post brings it all back into my hazy memory. Dickens was such an absurd character - the 'tea dance lothario' - and a rather committed moralising Tory, but never part of the in-crowd.
I'm certainly not. It doesn't seem at all unlikely that MI5 and other bodies were complicit in covering up after those paedos in high places that did exist though. After all, they've been happy to cover up in all sorts of other instances.Are we suggesting that any of the Satanic Panic allegations were anything other than fundie horseshit?
It is also interesting to note that Brittan issued his statement through his lawyer. I wonder why?
When other public figures have been asked to comment on the various Danczuk allegations, most have made public, on camera, statements (eg Clegg and Steel) or, as in the case of Cameron, have issued a statement via their official spokesperson.
None, as far as I am aware, have used solicitors to issue statements on their behalf.