[Originally written in 2012 - now relevant again. There is a very interesting anonymous comment that should be read too]
Why do rumours congregate around certain people? You might say there's no smoke without fire, but why Leon Brittan? Why not instead, Peter Morrison - the former MP for Chester and Deputy Leader of the Conservative party - who has already been named as involved in the Bryn Estyn business and is dead, and therefore unable to put out an injunction... Is it because we want action, we want movement, and we want things to happen. "Dead Tory MP was paedophile" isn't quite as exciting a headline as we would get if a living politician was implicated.
Also, there is the fact that the former victim has not quietened the speculation by saying "but anyway, he's dead now." And of course, the BBC has reported that the "senior figure" is vehemently denying the rumours/allegations etc and Rod Richards - another Welsh Tory has said in today's Daily Mail "Peter Morrison and another..."
It's commonly said that Labour Politicians get involved in financial scandals, while Tories get involved in sex scandals. Leon Brittan resigned from the European commission after a fraud case - in which he does not seem to have been implicated, and was subsequently ennobled: nevertheless, he seems to have had the bad luck to be implicated in both types of scandal. It is at times like this that one wishes Private Eye had an archive on the web. It is at times like these that one is irritated by the rumours, and vaguely aware of having read something, somewhere, but can't quite remember what, that left one with a bad feeling about a person.
Peter Morrison died aged 51 after a fairly active life as a user of rent boys - who would then have been underage - and probably of younger boys too. He wasn't the most prominent of Tories - apart from being Thatcher's PPS. He doesn't look particularly sinister - just a stoutish, ruddy man who obviously has sensual appetites, could be gay, but one wouldn't be surprised to find him pinching bottoms and winking roguishly at a Constituency Cheese & Wine Party either. The revelation in the Daily Mail of his involvement doesn't get Leon B off the hook yet. Although I have a soft spot for William Hague (due to his ability to rile Tony Blair at PM's Questions) the fact that he seems to have been in charge as Welsh Secretary during the Bryn Estyn investigation (and cover up) adds another element - there have been questions over Hague's sexuality too. If he is implicated in a cover up over this matter, these questions will no doubt be revisted.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, but unfortunately, because of the way attitudes have changed in the last 40 years, some people are still living in the age of discretion/secrecy that used to surround homosexuality. When people talk about a "Gay Mafia" they are reflecting the fact that when it was not permitted to be gay, loyalties and affinities were discovered, - which resulted in people protecting each other - regardless of the crime. This "huddling together for warmth" can be seen in any minority group - it doesn't necessarily lead to the covering up of crimes, and the protection of the guilty, but can certainly create a sense in those outside the group that they are sticking together and plotting and caballing. Might a gay man who was only interested in reputable equal relationships with other men nevertheless cover up something more dodgy, like paedophilia, because the perpetrator was a friend, a member of his protective group?
A propos this issue, one thing I have noticed, about virtually all the Tory politicians who are, or have been reputed to be, gay, is that those who are married never have children of their own, or usually, any children. Curiously there used to be rumours that Gordon Brown was a paedophile. For some reason, I never entertained these rumours as anything more than malicious - God knows who started them, he had enough enemies it seems. The fact that he married and had children whom he clearly loves, seemed a very final nail in the coffin of that particular rumour.
Why do rumours congregate around certain people? You might say there's no smoke without fire, but why Leon Brittan? Why not instead, Peter Morrison - the former MP for Chester and Deputy Leader of the Conservative party - who has already been named as involved in the Bryn Estyn business and is dead, and therefore unable to put out an injunction... Is it because we want action, we want movement, and we want things to happen. "Dead Tory MP was paedophile" isn't quite as exciting a headline as we would get if a living politician was implicated.
Also, there is the fact that the former victim has not quietened the speculation by saying "but anyway, he's dead now." And of course, the BBC has reported that the "senior figure" is vehemently denying the rumours/allegations etc and Rod Richards - another Welsh Tory has said in today's Daily Mail "Peter Morrison and another..."
It's commonly said that Labour Politicians get involved in financial scandals, while Tories get involved in sex scandals. Leon Brittan resigned from the European commission after a fraud case - in which he does not seem to have been implicated, and was subsequently ennobled: nevertheless, he seems to have had the bad luck to be implicated in both types of scandal. It is at times like this that one wishes Private Eye had an archive on the web. It is at times like these that one is irritated by the rumours, and vaguely aware of having read something, somewhere, but can't quite remember what, that left one with a bad feeling about a person.
Peter Morrison died aged 51 after a fairly active life as a user of rent boys - who would then have been underage - and probably of younger boys too. He wasn't the most prominent of Tories - apart from being Thatcher's PPS. He doesn't look particularly sinister - just a stoutish, ruddy man who obviously has sensual appetites, could be gay, but one wouldn't be surprised to find him pinching bottoms and winking roguishly at a Constituency Cheese & Wine Party either. The revelation in the Daily Mail of his involvement doesn't get Leon B off the hook yet. Although I have a soft spot for William Hague (due to his ability to rile Tony Blair at PM's Questions) the fact that he seems to have been in charge as Welsh Secretary during the Bryn Estyn investigation (and cover up) adds another element - there have been questions over Hague's sexuality too. If he is implicated in a cover up over this matter, these questions will no doubt be revisted.
There is nothing wrong with being gay, but unfortunately, because of the way attitudes have changed in the last 40 years, some people are still living in the age of discretion/secrecy that used to surround homosexuality. When people talk about a "Gay Mafia" they are reflecting the fact that when it was not permitted to be gay, loyalties and affinities were discovered, - which resulted in people protecting each other - regardless of the crime. This "huddling together for warmth" can be seen in any minority group - it doesn't necessarily lead to the covering up of crimes, and the protection of the guilty, but can certainly create a sense in those outside the group that they are sticking together and plotting and caballing. Might a gay man who was only interested in reputable equal relationships with other men nevertheless cover up something more dodgy, like paedophilia, because the perpetrator was a friend, a member of his protective group?
A propos this issue, one thing I have noticed, about virtually all the Tory politicians who are, or have been reputed to be, gay, is that those who are married never have children of their own, or usually, any children. Curiously there used to be rumours that Gordon Brown was a paedophile. For some reason, I never entertained these rumours as anything more than malicious - God knows who started them, he had enough enemies it seems. The fact that he married and had children whom he clearly loves, seemed a very final nail in the coffin of that particular rumour.
A friend of mine worked for the CPS in London in the early nineties. He told us about a night out with his boss at the time, who ended up drunk and weeping about the one who got away as the case against a paedophile ring was squashed.
ReplyDeleteA few years later, when travelling, an English journalist told a story about a court case attended by a local newspaper reporter. The defendant was accused of supplying rent boys and said, "You'll never send me down I supply the Home Secretary". The journalist went to her editor, who told her to go back for the Committal Hearing. This was a short Committal Hearing - normally used if the person is being sent for trial - at which they were acquitted. The journalist and her editor took the story to a national paper, who verified it and intended to publish but were stopped by a D Notice forbidding publication in the interest of national security.
Thanks for that - it's interesting and helpful to hear more specific stories like this.
DeleteThe whole freedom of the press issue gets dragged in too.I had almost forgotten about those pesky D Notices, otherwise "I supply the Home Secretary" could have become one of the great catchphrases of the 80's!