WE TOLD YOU SO!   Dickens 'Westminster Dossier' was just another collection of third-hand anecdotal tittle-tattle sent to him in letters which didn't stand the test of law.  Allegations against Leon Brittan utterly false - Click here to read Brittan's official reply to Dickens.


1981: March 17th: (Daily Star). I WON'T BE GAGGED:  Dickens intends to name the diplomat whose name is involved in the PIE child-porn scandal 'this week'.  "Dickens fears an establishment cover up".  Crown Prosecution Service had before O'Carroll's trial decided there was no prospect of a conviction with 10 members of PIE (including the diplomat) under the law as it then stood, but Dickens says the diplomat was allowed to use his PIE pseudonym in court to hide his true identity. (true) Attorney general Sir Michael Havers said the diplomat was an ardent collector of pornography but was not involved in organising PIE and a prosecution would not be in the publics' interest.
 (Ed: Note: A very important point here: When Dickens points to an 'establishment cover up' at this time he is in fact talking about the Old Boy network protecting one of its own, NOT an allegation that other people 'in high places' are involved in PIE which is how journalists today are angling it. )


1981: March 19th: Daily Express. I WILL NAME MORE NAMES:   Geoffrey Dickens warned his critics that his campaign against sexual  perversion in public life is only just beginning.  Earlier he had named Sir Peter Hayman as the mystery diplomat.  Dickens doesn't know the other names of  people involved in the police inquiry but if he finds them out he will name them.  "There are organisations funded by public money which have given the Paedophile Information Exchange a platform. I am gathering documentary evidence now and will name the organisations when I am ready.  The taxpayer has a right to know what drain his money is going down.  Inquiries he said were centreing on organisations which received grants from the Department of Health and the Home Office.  Dickens said there had been an "Establishment cover-up" to prevent the diplomat's prosecution"
Sir Michael Havers denied there had been any suggestion of a cover-up. "Because there was no corruption to the public there was no prosecution" he explained. 
(Ed: there is something not right with this report. The other members of PIE caught in the trawl along with Hayman were named using their actual names. Only Hayman was allowed a pseudonym. Dickens could have discovered the names of the other people by simply looking at the charge sheet.)







1981: March 22nd:  (Sunday Telegraph:)  SIR PETER: HOW THE STORY GOT OUT.  How did Sir Peter Hayman's identity come to light?  For the answer it is necessary to look not so much at the MP Geoffrey Dickens who took advantage of parliamentary privilege to make Sir Peter's role in the affair public, but at events surrounding the police action against the Paedophile Information Exchange, the group advocating the legalisation of sex with children of which  Sir Peter was a member , which took place six months ago.  It was in October last year that committal proceedings for the Old Bailey trial were held at London's Wells Street magistrates court.  Sir Peter's role in circulating child pornography y among a group of PIE members was a prominent part of the evidence compiled by the Obscene Publications Squad at Scotland Yard and presented by the Director of public prosecutions at the hearing. Within weeks of the committal hearing the satirical magazine Private Eye published a detailed account of Sir Peter's activities, referring to his pseudonym, R Henderson, his tenancy of a flat in Notting Hill Gate, his membership of PIE, and his role in the legal proceedings.  It  is now clear that this information came from a police officer. In effect the police had taken matters into their own hands to expose Sir Peter to the public gaze, even before the trial proper had begun. The other nine members of the PIE ring were made to give their real names and were properly identified before the magistrates.  This has been taken by some officers to be the beginnings of a cover up to protect the one distinguished man in the case.  In the end it took Dickens misuse of parliamentary privilege to place Sir Peter's disgrace on the public record.








1981: April 2nd (Standard)  DICKENS AND THE SAD TALE OF THREE WOMEN.  I would sooner present Mr Dickens MP and self-appointed public moralist with a magnum of tart vinegar which would leave the same sour taste in his mouth that his sordid affairs have left in mine.  In the space of a few weeks 49 year old Dickens has inflicted enormous pain on three women and five children. First came the announcement that he was leaving his wife Norma to live with his mistress, Mrs Maureen Knight, an announcement delivered to a crowded press reception before he had the grace or courage to phone Mrs Dickens herself.  The next day Mrs Pat Briggs 42, disclosed that she had had an affair with Mr Dickens for nine months.  He sent her love poems and letters on house of commons notepaper. She said Dickens had promised to take her and her 7 year old son on holiday. He did not.   He has shown not an ounce of discretion or sensitivity towards the women and children involved.






1983: August 25th (Daily Express) EIGHT TOP NAMES ON MY LIST OF SHAME.  Dickens reveals that eight public figures were on his 'list of shame' and that one of them had been a personal friend but he is still planning to name them in the Commons unless the Home Secretary takes action. "I've got eight names of big people, really important names, public figures. and I am going to expose them in Parliament.
(Ed:  Coincidentally (?) ,  on the same day The director of public prosecutions is given a file on paedophilia by police -)

 the work of two years by Scotland Yard's Obscene publication squad who went through 24 issues of the house magazine of the Paedophile Information Exchange which blatantly advertises the perverted interests of its members.

The Squad's thick file containing the names of 'the famous the wealthy and hundreds of anonymous citizens' was sent from the Yard yesterday.  Dickens' own list of eight public figures involved in that sex scandal was handed to the Director earlier this week.

His previous campaign to 'out' Sir Peter Hayman resulted in 8,000 letters from people who HAD TALES TO TELL of others like Hayman. Dickens said  'We ruled out anyone who had only one or two accusations against him. The others we sifted until we were down to a couple of dozen on whom there appeared to be considerable evidence that they were unhealthy perverts. Dickens used House of Commons researchers, enlisted local reporters, and friends to help go through records, check files, even empty dustbins of some of the suspects. Discussions with Scotland Yard followed. Dickens said the Yard had already been working on their own Case but I told them what I had. I suspect their list will be much bigger. Did he fear for his safety.  I thought about that and the list is sealed and deposited. with orders for it only to be opened and disclosed should anything happen to me.  
(Ed: Okay, Two important things here.
(1)  Dickens' first dossier (the Hayman Dossier) was expanded to include others he suspected using the expediency of  accusations in letters sent to him after his last bout of publicity.   His 'dossier' actually duplicated detailed  detective work which had already being professionally done by Scotland Yard since the PIE trial in 1981.  Presumably Dickens was kept abreast of this by his police informant.  To get publicity Dickens co-incided  his presentation of his own '8 names' to Scotland Yard with the  Police's file to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
(2) At this point both the Yard and Dickens were singing from the same hymn sheet and there was no suggestion o f a cover-up.

The question is: What did the DPP do with the Yard investigation?

1983: November 25th: (Daily Mail) VICE RING AT THE PALACE SAYS DICKENS.   A dossier which claims that a homosexual vice ring is operating inside Buckingham Palace has been handed to the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan. by Geoffrey Dickens.  Dickens said the Home Secretary had promised to investigate the allegations against ten men .   Dickens said there was evidence that young male staff who entered the palace as footmen, servants and cooks were being dragged into a web of vice where wealthy old men paid for their favours.  He drew attention to the case of a 16 year old boy who was given a kitchen job at the Palace after leaving catering college. After two years he was recommended for a new job as footman to a senior British diplomat known to be a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. (Ed: presumably Hayman) The boy later left this post and according to Dickens became the plaything for millionaires in America.
 (Ed: There is Crucial information in this report.

(1) Is the 'Palace Vice Ring Dossier' a new dossier, or are the 10 people included in the list he gave to the Met in August?  We think it is the same list with the addition of a new informant (the young cook). 

(2) It is vitally important to remember that homosexuality had only been made legal for over 21s in 1967 in England. However  in Scotland and Ireland it wasn't made legal until 1980 and 1982 respectively, therefore die-hard homophobic like Dickens were still trying to stigmatise and obstruct gays. One way they often did that was to accuse them of having sex with under 21s.  It is therefore quite possible that ALL of the people on Dickens' list were closet gays whom he had decided to victimise by outing them  for moral reasons. To Dickens and his supporters sex between men was a dirty perversion whatever the law said.

 






1986: March 18th: DICKENS ATTACKED OVER RAPE CLAIM:  The Speaker of the House, Michael Clark, St John-Stevas, Kevin McNamara MP, Edward Leigh, MP,  John Ryman MP, George Foulkes MP and others all stood in the House of Commons to criticise the actions of Dickens in naming a doctor who had been investigated over claims of rape but about which there was insufficient evidence for the police to prosecute.  It was a breach of privilege. (Ed: Dickens' naming and shaming campaign is causing a lot of debate but the simple fact is that if Dickens felt strongly enough about it why didn't he name the doctor outside the House?  The reason is that he would then be without protection from a libel suit!  So Dickens self-righteousness doesn't extend to taking personal risks. He can't be that sure of the evidence, yet he is playing a game with other people's lives and reputations. This should be borne in mind when evaluating the accuracy and gravity of the allegations in his 'dossiers')


1986 March 18th (Daily Star) DOCTOR'S WIFE HITS OUT AT BLUNDERS The wife of rape case doctor Colin B hit out yesterday at inaccurate facts in some newspapers.
I'VE BEEN GAGGED: (same page)  MPs watched in astonishment as Dickens and Michael Clark  MP exchanged angry words outside the chamber.  The Attorney General explained in the House why he was not taking action. 'The file prepared by Essex Police was considered by the county prosecuting solicitor who advised the chief constable that the evidence was insufficient. Following an expression of intent by the mother of the child concerned to institute a private prosecution the county prosecuting solicitor sought  a second opinion from the DPP. He was also of the view that the evidence was insufficient and I agree with him; "
(Ed: it is important to understand that Dickens tended to portray himself as a dragon slayer. He regularly acted as though he was being in some way 'gagged' so it is essential to point out that  he was free to say what he wanted outside of the Houses of Parliament and was only stopped from breaching the Rules of The House. This should not be confused with the idea that the Establishment were engaged in a cover up. )

1986 March 18th: BUNTER:  Yesterday Mr Dickens was the outcast of Westminster, shunned by fellow MPs for his behaviour . Many were outraged.  If Dickens has real evidence he should go to the Attorney General with it, not hawk names around in public" said a senior Tory. 

1986: March 18:  MP REBUKED BY SPEAKER:  The Speaker of the House condemned Geoffrey Dickens for perpetrating "a parliamentary lynch law" against a vicar and a doctor suspected of but not charged with child sex offences.  MPs from all sides condemned Dickens.  Dickens 'unreservedly apologised' and then went on to say he would like to advise Mr McNamara that he has a man in his constituency who is abusing children.  MPs shouted 'come off it' when he talked of his crusade for 'little children' and another shouted 'You nasty man' when he said he would continue to name the vicar.









1986: June 2nd MPs SECRET FILES HELP KILLER HUNT:  Geoffrey Dickens has given a 'secret dossier of shame' to the police in the hope it will find the Killer of Sarah Harper.  The file, locked in a House of Commons safe, contains hundreds of names of convicted and suspected child molesters. (Ed: This appears to be another 'dossier' The Secret Dossier of Shame sounds like a print out of police records on abuse suspects and probably came from Dickens' police informant.  It does not appear to have anything to do with the Westminster Dossier  nor the Hayman Dossier but these investigations by Dickens are so casual that he may very well have mixed up the contents of each for effect.  Note: Sarah Harper was abducted  on March 26th 1986  and her poor body found in the Trent near Nottingham late April 1986. ) 





1986: December 13th;  I WAS RIGHT Geoffrey Dickens used parliamentary privilege to name the doctor in the 8 year old rape case who was eventually found not guilty at trial. After Dickens identified him the doctor was named in some papers and heavily  victimised but Dickens still  thinks he was right to name him.
(Ed: This 'test' case is important because it illustrates that Dickens rushed to condemn on the flimsiest of evidence, ignored due process of law, persisted in sensational accusations and allegations without a shred of proper evidence.  It is often thought that crusading MPs have an insider's knowledge but in this instance Dickens had NO knowledge just prejudice.  This is the only time Dickens allegations have been tested in a court of law and they failed.  Thus it more or less proves our contention that all the evidence in his 'dossiers' is likely to be similarly circumstantial gossip or rumour hyped  as a publicity exercise to promote himself. )


1987: January 14th:  Geoffrey Dickens tries to get a private members bill to bring back hanging for child murderers but it is thrown out.

1987 February 1st (Sunday People) MYRA MOOR HUNT COOL CON: Dickens says her desire to help find graves of the victims was 'a cynical attempt to improve her chances of parole.  A Woman warder wrote to Dickens saying that Hindley was laughing about her deception.
(Ed: One could very well say the same about Dickens' repetitive sensational allegations which never produced any bodies either.)

1987 April 13th:  MP THREATENS TO NAME SEX CASE VICARS; At least 10 vicars are being investigated by the Childwach organisation 
(Ed: Dickens was Childwatch's parliamentary representative)
.
"If any atttempt is made to sweep this under the carpet or if the police or the church fail to take action then I would be prepared to name names in the House."
 (Ed:  Dickens again uses the threadbare ploy of obtaining publicity by claiming a conspiracy is in the offing which never ever materialises. He's conspiracy mad. )

1987 April 13th: CHILD ABUSE DOSSIER FOR RUNCIE:  Yet another 'dossier' from Dickens this time it is the 'Runcie Dossier' with the help of Childwatch Dickens has built a list of  10 vicars who he thinks are suspects;  but note that only FIVE of these are suspected currently. The other five are historical cases.   Core said that the church was 'covering up' the scandal.

1987 May 3rd: FURY AT VICAR OF FILTH;  Dickens demanded the sacking of a vicar last night for selling 'Filth' in church.  Dickens said the Rev Richard Kirker, secretary of the Gay Christian Movement had abused his position of trust. He called for the vicar's defrocking after a ChildWatch delegation visited St Botolphs Church in Aldgate London . "One book contained horribly explicit photographs of a gay couple making love"

1987 July 12th; (Mail) TATTOO THEIR WILLIES;  Dickens demands that AIDS victims should have their penises tattooed as a warning signal.  Dickens says there have been reports that some twisted aids victims spread the disease to get their revenge on society. ..They should be castrated if they don't tell their partners.
 (Ed: A more blatant homophobic attack could not be exampled. The 'murder by AIDS' myth was a Christian invention.  And he's not finished yet - see below )

1987 July 18th: TEA AND SYMPATHY: Dickens has given voluble backing this week to the Headmasters leader David Hart who says that morals should be taught in school. "I don't want to drag up the past but I will say that AIDS has put a very different perspective on the morality of sexual relationships. "

1987 August 27th (Daily Tel) MP NOT TO FIGHT MARGINAL SEAT. Dickens will stand down at the new boundary changes and said 'he intended to try to find a safer seat elsewhere'.

1988: April 15th  WITCHCRAFT WARNING: Young people are in danger from the effects of witchcraft which is sweeping the country said Geoffrey Dickens in the Commons last night.  In a call for a debate on witchcraft he said 'It was common knowledge that many people convicted of offences against children had been involved in witchcraft initiation ceremonies. ' His comments were met with laughter.

1988: April 16th: MP HAS FILE ON WITCHES;  A Dossier on witchcraft is being presented to Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Hurd is to be given the evidence by MP Geoffrey Dickens.
 (Ed This is the third dossier Dickens invented. We shall identify it as the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier' It is the one which the SAFF has looked into in detail.  It was a travesty of prejudice and contained no serious evidence or documents of any kind. Although Dickens claims to be sending it to the Home Secretary he never did - see above, next column)

1988 April 29th: (Independent)  Dickens promises to delivery 'a Dossier' of cases to ministers at the Home Office.  (Ed: note that in this report two weeks later Dickens says his dossier is going to ministers at the Home Office and not Douglas Hurd. )

1988 September   18th: SATAN VICTIMS STORM; Dickens infers that 15 year old Lee Boxell, who disappeared from his home on Sept 10th has been kidnapped and sacrificed by devil worshippers.  Sergeant Carnt of the Surrey police slammed the MP's 'theories'  He said Lee's parents were worried to death and if they read Mr Dickens nonsense it will not help them.  

1988: September 19th:  BABIES BEING SACRIFICED TO THE DEVIL; Children are lured into covens, drugged or brainwashed and then forced to take part in degrading sex acts. Mr Dickens says he is building up a dossier which he hope will provide concrete proof of the evils of Satanism.
 
(Ed: It appears that the Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier has not yet been sent to the Home Secretary and is still being compiled)

1989 July (Gods Word Now) CHILDREN SACRIFICED TO SATAN SAYS TORY MP. These things have and are happening he told She magazine. I am building up a very comprehensive dossier on this dangerous area' 
(Ed: So here we are again FIFTEEN MONTHS after Dickens first announced the Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier and he still hasn't sent it to the  Home Office.  Dickens never did. This is a very important fact. He has repetitively said in public to the effect that he has firm evidence and he will be sending it but has not.  It may very well be that his claim to have sent in other dossiers was also a lie to get  media coverage and he had no intention of doing so. '  )


1991 July 6th:  SATANIC ABUSE: END SPECULATION CALL;  A top detective has appealed for an end to speculation that the unsolved murder of Christopher Lavrack was linked to Satanic Abuse. He said there was no evidence to back up such claims which could interfere with police inquiries. Controversial MP Geoffrey Dickens is to mention Christopher's Case when he speaks to Attorney General Sir Patrick Mayhew next week. An investigation by the Mail revealed police evidence indicating Childwatch founder Dianne Cores activities undermined the case against suspected abusers of the boys.  Police did not find any evidence of Satanism. (Ed: Here is categoric proof that Dickens' 'evidence' is hearsay which is not worth a light. Obviously Christopher Lavrack's murder is down in Dickens' Dossier as a Satanic Murder.  The police have now publicly said there is no evidence at all to suggest that. But Dickens still persists and in fact forced an official police inquiry into the Hull police over the issue. It took over a year to finalise and came to the exact same conclusion!)

1992 May 15th.  MP FINDS BLACK MAGIC IN DRAWER:  MP Bernard Jenkins takes over Dickens office and finds a cache of occult magazines. Dickens said 'I have been campaigning against the sort of people who produce this sort of material for years and I had a researcher in for a year to look into it.  I had forgotten that all my stuff was in there.
(Ed:  Was the 'stuff' in Dickens desk part of the Satanic Ritual Child Abuse Dossier?  If it was why hadn't he sent it to the Home Secretary. If he stuck to his story that the original dossier had been 'lost' then why didn't he use this 'stuff' to recompile it?  Because it's not proper evidence! )

1992 July 9th:  DICKENS ABUSE DOSSIER HELPS POLICE INQUIRY:  Geoffrey Dickens was today providing information to a police investigation into complaints about police handling of alleged cases of child abuse.  They cover various cases which the MP has taken up with the Home office and the Attorney general.. 

(Ed: Another 'Dossier'  We call this the Hull Police Dossier' because it was an attempt by Dickens to pull rank and overturn police decisions which, rightly,  went against Childwatch when after the organisation had interfered with ongoing police investigations in such a way that the real suspects could not be brought to book. )


1992 August 13th:  DICKENS ON CAMERA IN EURO WAR ON SATANISM.  A Swedish television crew filmed Dickens for a documentary they were making on the global spread of Satanism , devil-worship and witchcraft.  "They knew I had made an in-depth study and they wanted me to reveal on camera some of the mysteries surrounding  the evil crafts." The Swedes also donated 1,000.00 to the child protection charity Childwatch to which Mr Dickens is a consultant.
(Ed: This film NO GREATER EVIL, was broadcast in 1993. You can see excerpts from it here:.  As usual  Dickens has no hard evidence and  several of the other SRA hunters in this programme have since been discredited. )

1993: January 8th:  (The Oldie) KIDNEY THIEVES; "Dickens has urged businessmen to be on a red alert for an international gang of kidney thieves operating in the Manchester area.  Local businessmen are being lured to private addresses by siren maidens who give them drugged drinks When they wake up the following day the businessmen discover an unsightly stitched wound on their stomachs."

1994 February 25th: (Express).  THE PALACE OF SEX;  Dickens says he is going to finish a 'blockbuster novel based on the shenanigans of MPs in the House.  It is even more raunchy than the sex-shocker that has earned former Health Minister Edwina Currie.  Mr Dickens said he was not worried that Edwina Curries book which includes explicit scenes of oral sex. had stolen his thunder "My book will be much racier than hers...."

1994 April 1st:  ORDER OF THE NOOSE:  Sunday Sport publish full uncensored photograph of two Syrians hanged in public. Dickens says 'People must see what it is like to be hanged so if it is re-introduced here it would deter murderers" (see image on right)

1994: May 4th:  (Rochdale Observer). SATANIC ABUSE CLAIMS A MYTH:  La Fontaine's Government report on SRA is published but Geoffrey Dickens claims satanic and ritual abuse is still going on all over the country, "although he would not comment on the Rochdale Case. ".

Dickens public involvement with hyping the Satanic Ritual Abuse Myth  tapered off after the government report and after a short illness he died in 1995 and his 'dossiers' were buried with him.

Geoffrey Dickens Caught Lying On TVThe Disappearing  Dickens Dossiers

Our Unique Dossier Timeline Reveals The Truth About What Went Where and When.

With the spectacle of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary  jumping on the bandwagon to call for an investigation into Geoffrey Dickens 'lost' Dossier which supposedly  incriminated child-abusers in the Westminster clique,  the 1989 Satanic Ritual Child Abuse Myth has come full-circle to consume the self-righteous politicians  who gave it credence in the first place.

Geoffrey Dickens is today portrayed as a child-welfare hero by the   sycophants  in the British Media;  the fact that Dickens employed continuous self-promotion using controversial campaigns to heighten his political profile and was a complete joke amongst MPs from both parties when he was alive, is conveniently forgotten.  The fact that he almost single-handedly started the Satanic Panic and caused untold people harm is ignored also.

Dickens' nickname in parliament 'Bunter' indicates the contempt in which he was often held by people from his own party as well as those from the opposition.  This buffoon was so much of an opportunist that it was common knowledge he could not be trusted with a serious brief and throughout his political career always remained on the political sidelines.  His grandstanding over moral issues ruffled the protocol of parliament and he inadvertently made many political enemies for victimising innocent people under the cloak of parliamentary privilege. 

BUNTER OR BLUNDER?

Kiddie Monsters Are Out To Kill - Geoffrey Dickens
HOW DICKENS EXAGGERATED FACTS TO SUIT HIMSELF:  In the middle of the Satanic Abuse Myth parents began reporting to the police random visits from people claiming to be Social Workers who inspected their children. Some took the children's clothes off to check their bodies. But when they were challenged for ID by parents the Bogus Social Workers fled.

 About 40 instances of this occurred and were capitalised upon by Dickens (as you can see from the cutting above). Thankfully before he could start another 'dossier' on it, the police investigation caught some of the Bogus Social Workers and it turned out that they were freelance do-gooders who, spurred on by Dickens' Satan Myth had taken the law into their own hands to check on children from families who were living New Age lifestyles! 

Child charities, who were guilty of hyping the hysteria were told to tell their volunteers NOT to interfere. They did so and the Bogus Social Work Myth evaporated as quickly as it had appeared, but I will lay an even bet that Kiddie Monsters went into Dickens' dossier!
Predisposed to blunder and faux pas Dickens even walked into the wrong division booth and accidentally voted against his government on one occasion.  He was so familiar with his subject that "in 1981 he thought paedophiles was pronounced 'fidopiles' "(Sun March 18th 1986).  In 1983 he made sniggering headlines again when his election leaflet stated that Dickens would "support the nuclear deterrent until unilateral disarmament".    Stuck in the mores of his uneducated background he was constantly amusing other MPs with shallow comments and in a famous instance, now enshrined in Hansard,  once told MPs  that  'witchcraft was sweeping the country' , giving Dennis Skinner MP the opening for saying 'It's in Downing Street' in reference to Thatcher, which caused hysterical laughter on both sides of the House. 

The point I am making is whether or not  this  man, and his 'dossiers' should be taken seriously, and the answer is NO!  It is important to realise that Dickens was a parliamentary 'outsider' who never felt comfortable in the company of intellectuals.  He often complained about the privileged elite in Westminster and his original allegations were not about a child-abuse cover-up but rather attacking the Old Boy network.    This should be borne in mind by all those who cannot differentiate between an altruistic expose to protect children and spitefulness.


VICIOUS BIGOT AND LIAR

Dickens was no hero but neither was he a well-meaning fool.   He cynically misused parliamentary privilege to victimise people in order to pursue his personal campaigns and he brought the democratic process into disrepute (see column left for a blow by blow account of his malevolence). 

Meet My New Love. Geoffrey Dickens Lies to his wife.Whilst self-righteously campaigning on universal moral issues he lied to his wife, lied to his mistress, lied to his wife again, then lied to another mistress, then went back to his wife to pacify his constituency party,  all within a matter of  months.

It is interesting to see activists from the Child Scare Industry try to re-write history and portray Dickens as a saint.  To see the oaf  in real-time click on the photo above and hear his duplicity  in our  SAFFutube clip.

Dickens was an intolerant extreme right-winger of the  Hang 'em, Flog 'em and Stick 'em in the Army brigade.  He specialised in getting attention based on the most provocative policies to pander to the worst kind of herd-instinct. A gift to the tabloid press he became 'rent-a-quote' for the unacceptable face of Conservatism during a period when the Tories were trying to move towards the political centre. 

Dickens demanded castration for rapists,  said that that AIDS victims should be forced to have their penises tattooed to warn prospective partners; and actually accused some gays of consciously using AIDS to kill others to get their own back on society!  About one rapist he said:
"If he was a dog he would have to be put down", 
 You get the picture?

A CLOSET FASCIST?

Geoffrey Dickens Condoning publishing pictures of hanged menOn two occasions Dickens set up serious campaigns to bring back hanging.  If somebody had suggested public executions he would have been first in the queue to vote for it.  (see disgusting inset panel right). 

He
demanded that the Church of England should sack all gay vicars, accused the National Union of Teachers of  blackmail and in one stunt even got a piece printed complaining that he felt cheated that 125.00 meals at the Park Lane Hilton were not big enough for the price he had just had to pay!

He wasted parliamentary time with policies which were obviously destined for failure during the parliamentary process and of which his party did not approve, yet as long as it gave Dickens some more publicity he appeared happy to be in the news.

 Dickens was a closet fascist whose antics would be deplored today by the very people who are extolling him. . The left-wing would have attacked him politically at every turn.   He was a rabid homophobe.  At a time when the gay community was fighting to obtain justice and equality (Ed: Scotland and Ireland had only just made homosexuality legal in 1982) Dickens equated homosexuality with sexual perversion and you should note that the 'Westminster Dossier' campaign was to hunt down Gays who he saw as sexual abusers.  Therefore, ironically, the left-wing media who are today enjoying using Dickens' supposed dossier to discredit the Tories in the lead up to the next election (in the same way they stigmatised them for 'sleaze' in 1997) are in fact pursuing a homophobic agenda set for them by a dead fascist politician!  

Any psychologist will tell you that 50% of the underlying motivation of those who believe in the Satan Ritual Child Abuse Myth is an attack by puritans on homosexuality, but much of the press either don't know that, or dare not debate the issue.  So the social stress surfaces as allegations of Satanic Abuse, or Celebrity Abuse or People in High Places abuse instead. 

THE RIGHT WAY TO LIVE

After his attack on suspected  child-abusers  in Westminster, he turned to berating the Church of England for gay priestly abuse.  As a bigoted Christian lay preacher Dickens, an unsophisticated man who saw all beliefs but Christianity as counterfeit, equated the New Age with Satanism. After the shock-value of these earlier campaigns  had  run out of steam he kept the impetus going by jumping on the Satanic Ritual Child Abuse bandwagon.

DICKENS and CHILDWATCH

Dickens was the parliamentary representative of the Childwatch charity run by Dianne Core in Hull. Most of the 'evidence' in Dickens' dossier about Satanic Abuse came through her.  She was responsible for his Runcie Dossier as well and the abortive Hull Police dossier. She knew Dickens very well and was once feted by politicians and the media; yet none of today's children's champions have bothered to mention her.  Why?

Well it is probably because she claimed publicly in connection with Dickens campaign  that 4,000 children per year were sacrificed in Satanic Ceremonies in the U.K., that Satanists melted babies down to make black candles out of their fat and that after sacrificing children their finger bones were strung on necklaces worn by Satanic Hight Priests? 


Diane Core stated  "I am convinced that Satanic abuse not only exists but is a real danger to modern family life. About four thousand babies a year are born into covens to be used for sacrifices and cannibalism. 

He turned inevitably, to fringe Christians who had invented the  idea of Satanic Ritual Abuse using horrific images conjured from their sick minds.  Dickens was the prime political driver of this myth from 1988 until his death in 1995, and his  only political legacy is that those SRA lies caused this country very dear not only in having to fix his fantasies afterwards with obscenely expensive public enquiries but in social dissension, intolerance, and the victimisation of innocent  people  by the Child Scare Industry which rallied around Dickens to expand its own  remit.

Of what worth then, is his 'Westminster Dossier'?   All allegations of child abuse have to be checked out but some are more equal than others.  A sense of proportion is necessary but Dickens' 'dossier' is being treated as some kind Rosetta Stone of abuse by the Child-Scare industry.  Even though they know that Dickens'  Satanic Ritual Child Abuse allegations turned out to be wholly untrue

It is right to to say that it was the exaggeration of the incidence of child abuse which his campaigns caused which fueled the hysterical climate in the U.K. where parents think twice about disciplining their children in public and men over 50 walk around the block to avoid going past kids playgrounds in case they are inadvertently hung drawn and quartered by hysterical mothers.

KEY QUESTIONS ABOUT DOSSIERS

There are several key questions related to Dickens' now famous Dossiers and the first is the quality of his 'evidence'.   We can categorically state that every single person who Dickens drew evidence from for his allegations about Satanic Ritual Child Abuse, for instance, were all discredited in the course of time and most if not all of their allegations were proven false.  His Dossiers were therefore more than untrustworthy - they were largely fiction. The  much vaunted dossier on SRA for example, never ever saw the light of day and may not have actually existed, which is of crucial importance for those politicians today who are chasing after Dickens' 'Westminster Dossier'

OUTLAWING PAGANISM     

Note well that Dickens had prepared  his famous 'dossier'  on Satanic Ritual Abuse  to present to the Home Secretary with the intention of pushing the government into outlawing witchcraft.   Although  the pivot for this campaign was accusations of child-abuse in satanic ceremonies Dickens' real intention was to outlaw witchcraft ( Ed: which, for accuracy's sake,  is a remnant of the ancient Celtic pagan religion which Christianity displaced in Britain, and it has nothing in common with satanism).

In April 1991, at the height of the Satanic hysteria Dickens attempted to hi-jack the Criminal Justice Bill and add an amendment outlawing witchcraft.  After a campaign against this by the SAFF  backed by the pagan community the amendment was ruled 'beyond the scope of the Bill' and thrown out, but Dickens vowed to continue to try outlawing paganism whenever he could.  You can see Dickens lying about this amendment here:  Dickens was first and foremost  a puritanical sectarian, not a children's' advocate. 

THE LOST DOSSIERS OF HELIGAN

Although much vaunted in the press, (as was the 'Westminster Dossier' recently)  THE SRA DOSSIER WAS NEVER SENT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.  We believe, and we believe we can prove it,  that Dickens 'SRA dossier' was so superficial and anecdotal that it would have been laughed out of court if it had been given to the Home Office.

Geoffrey Dickens Dossier Was Never Sent To The Home Office

" I HOLD IN MY HAND A PIECE OF PAPER..."

Be aware that during his career as an MP from 1979 to 1995 Dickens had REPETITIVELY claimed to the press that he had a 'dossier' of one kind or another to prove his outrageous allegations on a number of disparate subjects, not always to do with kids.  He was rapidly getting the nickname Dickens the Dossier.   Not one of these 'dossiers'  ever conclusively proved anything.  The word 'dossier' tends to conjour an image of a large and documented file of information backed by official papers, forms and testimony, but one 'Dossier' of his, produced on the subject of pornography after months of extensive publicity, turned out to be a single sheet of paper with a list of eight names on it. .  

The Dickens SRA Dossier was just a collection of tittle-tattle unworthy of note.  We can say that because we know the people who gave him his unsubstantiated rumours and know that their evidence was faulty. For months Dickens claimed to be sending this dossier to the Home Office. Each time he metaphorically waved it in the air the press would dutifully print that claim as though the evidence for SRA was so convincing it was beyond debate, just like they are doing today with the Westminster Dossier.   The SAFF wrote to the Home Office about this:  Their official reply is clear:

"Firstly, as you point out, according to press reports, Mr Geoffrey Dickens MP has sent the Home Secretary a dossier of child abuse cases allegedly connected with witchcraft.  However, this has not been received and the Home Office has no other evidence that there is a problem of the kind Mr Dickens describes. "

 A Peek Inside Dickens' SRA Dossier:Contents of Dickens SRA Dossier - MP Has File On Witches

Being a rational person you probably thought that a dossier of evidence meant that really important incriminating documents, or  photographs, or forensic proof, or bodies, and stuff like that had been turned up to incontrovertibly prove Dickens's contentions right?  Yes?  Not quite: 

The dossier which Dickens  SAID he was going to give to  the Home Secretary in April 1988 ( see above image ) contained only ridiculous assertions  and suspicions by fundamentalist agent provocateurs. For example,  the  'evidence' from Rob and Anita Pennel  which  Dickens announces in this cutting  is in fact utter conjecture. That he is making a big play over the Pennels flimsy  story would suggest that the rest of his 'dossier' is laughable.

Like most of Dickens's 'informants' Mr & Mrs Pennel are evangelicals  (the local newspaper actually termed them Bible Thumpers ), their link with Dickens occurred after they claimed that they had been driven out of their house by Satanists who had sacrificed their cat, though according to local reports it appeared clear that local vandals were the actual culprits.   No evidence whatsoever of killing babies though!  

If this is the best Dickens could do for his SRA dossier, of how much importance would you attach to his 'People in High Places are Abusing Children'  dossier which the British media are currently having a feeding frenzy over?   Could it be the same  tosh? .
When challenged about this Dickens inferred that the 'dossier'  must have been lost in the post.

 Of course we asked his duplicate copy was but Dickens claimed there wasn't any duplicates!

We said, on such an important document surely he would have taken copies of at least some documents?
 Nope, there were no copies. 

We challenged again -  surely then he would be able to RECOMPILE the evidence in the dossier from his researchers' notes and original documents? 
Apparently he could not.  

We then asked why he did not recontact those people who had originally given him the evidence and ask them to give it again?  We knew who they were and they were still contactable. There was apparently no chance of that either.

Even the Childwatch group in Hull for whom Dickens was the parliamentary representative and who had coached him in the intricacies of SRA couldn't apparently recover  ANY documents to recompile  Dickens'  much vaunted  SRA dossier! 
Yet we know it was possible, because on 15th May 1992, long after our challenges, Bernard Jenkins MP took over Dickens' office in Westminster and found a cache of occult magazines and documents there.  What was Dickens' response? Well, surprisingly Geoffrey did not say:   'GREAT, I can now recompile part of my dossier and send the proof to the Home Secretary'.  Instead he simply said that he'd forgotten they were there. Which obviously means he didn't value them , probably because he knew the evidence was dross, and that stunt had passed its sell-by date.

BABIES ARE BRED FOR SACRIFICE - AN EX-WITCH TOLD ME SO...

Note that, by 1992, following the Rochdale and Orkney Satanic Ritual Abuse fiascos the British public were becoming weary of the SRA myth and a backlash had occurred against it in the press.  One of the last bits of sensationalist publicity Dickens used to promote the idea of SRA was OctopusTV's  No Greater Evil  a documentary into which was poured a concoction of horrific extremist claims and false allegations about so-called satanic child abusers.

 Dickens was interviewed along with Dianne Core, Jim Phillips, (the doctor who created a tranche of SRA victim imposters in his private clinic but who then had a nervous breakdown and tried to kill himself and was subsequently struck of the medical register for incorrectly treating patients) , and SRA hunter extraordinaire Vera Diamond, explaining how 'babies are bred for sacrifice'
  You can see extracts from this deplorable film here:


Any clued-in observer will immediately see why Dickens SRA Dossier had 'gone missing'.  Dickens DID NOT WANT anyone to see his  'dossier' because it was such a collection of idiocity that it actually undermined his case - thus it was better off lost.    He could still carry on acting as though he had evidence and now didn't even have to substantiate his allegations!  

So much for the 'Dickens SRA Dossier' .  
Does anyone today actually believe that it existed? 
Does anyone believe he had hard evidence?
Does anyone today believe that babies are being sacrificed and eaten in satanic ceremonies?
Does anyone actually think that this proven liar and irresponsible buffoon had any real and trustworthy evidence?  
Of course not!

ANOTHER PEEK INSIDE DICKENS' SRA DOSSIER

"A white witch has joined with anti-child abuse campaigners to compile a sensational black magic report to put before MPs.  Disturbing revelations about the activities of Black Witches are made in a report by the Childwatch group run by Dianne Core.  Now it is to be discussed  during a commons debate called by MP Geoffrey Dickens.  The report gives background information on details of occult contact magazines, shops, regalia and paraphernalia. Much of this information has been supplied by white-witch Beth Gurevitch who worked in Humberside recently performing three exorcisms. (Ed: shortly after this Gurevitch opened her own occult shop in Birmingham selling regalia and paraphernalia herself!)
Then why is the prime minister, leading civil servants, MPs and most of the British Press acting hysterically over wild allegations of another supposedly 'hidden' Dickens' dossier?  The answer is simple.  The Child Scare Industry, powered by lies from people like Dickens has over 26 years repetitively  burned false synaptic trackways in the soft brains of simple-minded MPs who suffer an irresistible knee-jerk reaction every time the press shout the words 'child-abuse'.   After all, the moral blackmail goes like this:  If you don't instantly condemn anyone suspected of abuse, you are an accessory to it!  Hence the excellent strategic double-think of the 'Westminster Dossier'.  

 If the amount of government money poured into the Child-scare industry was rediverted into the National Health Service it would solve the financial problems there at a stroke.   Misusing  taxpayers funds to  allow  manic therapists  to indulge themselves and  the recidivist mentally ill in highly expensive and dubious 'treatments'  is simply pyramid selling.  

We call the dossier they are seeking 'the Westminster Dossier' because Dickens pulled so many stunts with 'dossiers' that it will otherwise become confusing.   You will find a table of Dickens' Dossiers below to clarify the situation.

MEDIA JUMP ON THE BANDWAGON

Smug Poraic O'Brien of Channel 4 News (notwithstanding getting his fingers burnt backing the wrong horse in the McAlpine affair last year and having to make an apology on air for relying on the say-so of self-styled 'victims' of 'people in high places')  now publicly berates poor old Leon Brittan for forgetting whether or not Dickens gave him a 'dossier' in the 1980s.

It could simply be because Bunter was always claiming to be preparing dossiers on various issues - lets face it, all of them were very much a waste of time. There is nothing that Dickens did which actually saved any children from harm.  The civil servants must have been heartily sick of having to pander to his transparent political strategies. They probably just went through the motions.  But then  Poraic reports that civil servants eventually found some  correspondence related to a Dickens' Dossier in 1984. The inference is that Brittan's forgetfulness was part of an establishment cover up.   Well Poraic, get a new researcher, we've done your job for you in the leftmost column and now everyone can see the truth.

Rochdale Inquisition: Mail On Sunday March 10, 1991LESSER KNOWN MPs MAKE THEIR MARK

Crusading MP Simon Danczuk  has apparently taken over the mantle of Dickens as well as the constituency of his friend Cyril Smith  (Ed: Dickens and Cyril Smith sang together on a charity single with Bananarama in the 1980s) . Danczuk is eager to find something but appears to have missed the point that the biggest child abuse scandal in modern times was in his own constituency, Rochdale, where kids were kidnapped in dawn lifts based on scaremongering from the very politician he is now aggrandizing!   There is certainly something  of the dark about all this.

Everyone is searching for 'the dossier' but nobody actually knows which dossier they are supposed to be looking for, nor what is actually in it!  The claims of what it might contain are legion and are becoming inflated by the minute to satisfy the loony demands of the conspiracy theorists on the internet.  Again, like Dickens before them, they don't actually have to identify or discover the REAL 'dossier'  (if indeed it exists) instead they simply have to allege that it exists and then fantasize about it's content to bring down the government or undermine the democratic process.  The only thing that's missing at the moment is a Jimmy Savile connection but I'm sure they'll find one given enough time. Now, then! Now then!

 Yet again history repeats itself. Dickens only needed to pretend to have a dossier for SRA  in the 1990s to start a national panic which ruined hundreds of innocent peoples' lives.  Today Channel 4 and the rest of the British media only require unsubstantiated claims about a  missing dossier rumoured to contain evidence of child abuse linked to a high-level cover up, before the sensationalism goes off the scale.

 Well thank goodness for the SAFF because our work in researching all this stuff is legendary and we can do what the rest of the British government and media apparently can't. We have tracked Dickens' dossiers and can give a blow-by-blow of what they were and what they contained below and in the leftmost column.


Table of all Dossiers Claimed by Dickens since he became an MP in  1979

DOSSIER NUMBER 1, 
The Hayman Dossier 24th March 1981:


This contains  'evidence' to support the claim that Peter Hayman's name was kept out of a trial for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).  Dickens is asserting that Hayman was protected by the Old Boy network in Westminster  Dickens  says he will  hand the 'dossier' directly to Lord Hailsham, the Lord Chancellor. "I would be very surprised if the mountain of mail which I have received does not include evidence about the involvement of others".   


(Ed: Dickens' first dossier  is therefore the Hayman Dossier. (that is, a complaint about Hayman not being prosecuted for membership of PIE.   This complaint was sent to Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor.   This 'dossier' was later expanded to include other people he suspected using  accusations in letters sent to him after the publicity caused by his original claims but these are not part of the original dossier presented to Hailsham, they are an ongoing project. 

 It is widely believed that Dickens was tipped off about Hayman by a disgruntled  policeman who had worked on the original PIE investigation..   Such a breach of police procedure was investigated, as it had to be, but there is no assertion that this leak investigation was part of a cover-up.   Dickens did duplicitly claim that he was being 'gagged' because MPs refused to allow him to misuse parliamentary privilege to name suspects, however he was perfectly free to name those suspects outside of parliament.  He refused to do so presumably because his 'evidence' was so weak it would have left him open to a suit for defamation.


DOSSIER NUMBER 2: 
DOSSIER OF SHAME / LIST OF SHAME
1983: August 25th

It is two years since Dickens sent his Hayman Dossier to Hailsham.   Today Dickens claims that eight public figures were on his 'list of shame' and that one of them had been a personal friend but he is still planning to name them in the commons unless the Home Secretary took action.

  (Ed: This 'dossier' actually piggy-backed  detailed  detective work which had already been ongoing by Scotland Yard since the PIE trial in 1981.  The two year Police investigation was related to identifying people from issues of PIE magazine.  Presumably Dickens was kept abreast of this by his police informant.    The Yard report on PIE was completed and ready  to present to the DPP when Dickens got wind of it and jumped on the publicity bandwagon by giving his own  list of  '8 names' to Scotland Yard so that they can be amalgmated with the  Police file which was presented to the Director of Public Prosecutions.  Dickens did not say that he was sending the Dossier of Shame to the Home Secretary (who at that time was Leon Brittan).

In recent statements Brittan referred to correspondence between he and Dickens in 1984, not 1983, however we do not have any press reports for that happening during 1984.  It may be that Brittan never knew of  the 1983 Dossier of Shame because the Yard amalgamated it with their own report or even binned it, particularly if it duplicated names already in their own investigation.     The Dossier of Shame is probably the one with the most crucial allegations in it.  Dickens described them as BIG names and said that one of them had been a personal friend, thus it can be assumed that they were within the Westminster Clique. However, it is important to underline that with Dickens' homophobic attitude these names could simply have been Closet Gays and not paedophiles.  Dickens never drew a distinction  between those definitions. To him all gays were paedophiles.

DOSSIER NUMBER 3:
Vice Ring At The Palace Dossier
Nov 25th 1983

It is only four months since Dickens sent his Dossier of Shame (Dossier 2) to Hailsham.  On November 25th 1983 he claims that a homosexual vice ring is operating inside Buckingham palace and he has handed the dossier to the Home Secretary, Leon Brittan.  Dickens said the Home Secretary had promised to investigate the allegations against ten men .  This dossier seems an adjunct to the previous two but is still a form of gay-bashing for Dickens.  It does not appear to directly concern PIE or paedophillary but rather  homosexuality.  Dickens' informant appears to be a young man who has kiss-and-tell stories about gay trystes at the Palace.  Dickens says his informant was 16 at the time (and therefore would then have been under age) but this kind of activity does not constitute a vice-ring.   Did Brittan look into it? Did the police Look into it?  These are valid questions.

DOSSIER NUMBER 4:
Secret Dossier of Shame TWO
June 2nd  1986

On  June 2nd 1986  Geoffrey Dickens 'has given a 'secret dossier of shame' to the police in the hope it will find the Killer of Sarah Harper.   The file, locked in a House of Commons safe, contains hundreds of names of convicted and suspected child molesters. '

(Ed: This appears to be a completely different  The Secret Dossier of Shame  to the one floated by Dickens three years ago in 1983.  It sounds like a compiled list of official police records or local authority records on abuse suspects and prosecutions.   It does not appear to have anything to do with the Dossiers 1, 2, and 3, but these investigations by Dickens are so casual that he may very well have mixed up the contents of each.  Note: Sarah Harper (no connection with Sarah's Law - that was developed after the murder of Sarah Payne) was abducted  on March 26th 1986  and her poor body found in the Trent near Nottingham late April 1986 so the investigation was still ongoing when Dickens got publicity for this dossier. ) 


DOSSIER NUMBER 5.
Runcie Dossier
April 13th 1987

Headline: CHILD ABUSE DOSSIER FOR RUNCIE: April 13th, 1987. Yet another 'dossier' from Dickens this time it is the 'Runcie Dossier' with the help of Childwatch, Dickens has built a list of  10 vicars who he thinks are suspects;  but note that only FIVE of these are suspected currently. The other five are historical cases.   Core said that the church was 'covering up' the scandal.    There is no suggestion that this Dossier is connected with Dossiers 1, 2, 3 and 4. There is no Westminster connection, it appears entirely separate,  but the idea that the church was 'covering it up' is a perennial complaint which may have firmed-up other 'cover-up' allegations about Westminster in peoples' minds.  However this dossier concerns the whitewashing of  abusing vicars to protect the reputation of the church and is not an attempt by people in high places to hide child abuse rings.

DOSSIER NUMBER 6.
Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier
April 16th  1988

It is now five years since Dickens' last allegations about people being involved in vice-rings in high places ( Westminster / the Palace ) He has not furthered the issue. There has been no other publicity about his claims until:

1988: April 16th: MP HAS FILE ON WITCHES;  A Dossier on witchcraft is being presented to Home Secretary Douglas Hurd. Hurd is to be given the evidence by MP Geoffrey Dickens.

 (Ed This is the sixth dossier Dickens has promoted. We shall identify it as the 'Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier' It is the one which the SAFF has looked into in great detail over a quarter of a century.  It was a travesty of prejudice and contained no serious evidence or documents of any kind.  You can see constant undermining of its position on this webpage and throughout the SAFF website. IMPORTANT  Although Dickens claims to be sending the Satanic Ritual Abuse Dossier to the Home Secretary he never did - see above letter from the Home Office,)



Core Chasing Satan. Yorkshire Post 9 June 1994DOSSIER NUMBER 7.  The Hull Police Dossier July 9th 1992

1992 July 9th:  DICKENS ABUSE DOSSIER HELPS POLICE INQUIRY:  'Geoffrey Dickens was today providing information to a police investigation into complaints about police handling of alleged cases of child abuse.  They cover various cases which the MP has taken up with the Home office and the Attorney General.'

(Ed: Another 'Dossier'  We call this the Hull Police Dossier'. It was an attempt by Dickens to pull rank and overturn police decisions which, rightly,  went against Childwatch  after the organisation had interfered with ongoing police investigations in such a way that the real suspects could not be brought to book.  

Because Childwatch was castigated by the media for troublemaking and inventing SRA cases in and around Hull,  this by qualification questioned Dickens'  Commons statements and allegations on SRA which had used Childwatch 'evidence'.  Dickens came to the charity's defence by demanding an investigation into how Hull police had handled the cases. Unbelievably he got one.  It was conducted by The South Yorkshire Police, lasted over a year, cost a  fortune (two million pounds!) and came out with the same conclusions about Childwatch that Hull police had previously stated.

This 'smokescreen' to hide the fact that there was no SRA in any of the key cases which Childwatch had passed to Dickens was deplorable but it set the standard for satan hunter conspiracists in social work who forever after claimed that there was a 'police' conspiracy to hide the extent of SRA. The tacit idea was that all police are freemasons and part of the Satanic conspiracy. Completely untrue but does it sound familiar? Westminster conspiracy of people in  high places to hide child abuse?  Dossier number 7 is not therefore about abuse because it concerns only the mode and extent of police investigations into SRA claims;  however we have included it to clarify the number and reach of Dickens' 'dossiers' and to show that they contained rumour, not hard evidence.)

Ends at  7 Dossiers.



Tony Rhodes and John Freedom , July 2014.
Publicity Stunts by Geoffrey Dickens MP



In Memoriam Geoffrey Dickens 1932 1995



LATEST REVELATIONS: WE TOLD YOU SO!   Dickens 'Westminster Dossier' was just another collection of third-hand anecdotal tittle-tattle sent to him in letters which didn't stand the test of law.  Allegations against Leon Brittan utterly false -  The Westminster Buffoon exaggerated what he had to agrandise himself and fooled you all again.  Here's the original letter from Brittan to Dickens:


Leon Brittan's letter to Geoffrey Dickens Full Text Page one
Leon Brittan's letter to Geoffrey Dickens full text last page

NOW READ THE FULL TEXT BELOW:


FULL READABLE TEXT IN THIS PANEL


Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AT
20 March 1984
Dear Geoff,
Allegations of Paedohilia


You drew to my attention a number of allegations concering paedpohilia when you called here on 34 November and in subsequent letters.

I am now able to tell you that, in general terms, the view of the Director of Public Prosecutions is that two of the letters you forwarded could for a basis for enquiries by the police and they are now being passed to the appropriate authorities. In other cases there either seems to be inadequate evidence to pursue prosecution, for example the lady who wrote about PIE advertising but did not secure any example of the material complained of, or they have already been dealt with in some way by the courts or the police.

I need to respond in some more detail to the two cases which you raise with me initially and on which there has been some press comment.

The first case was reported as involving a civil servant. In fact the complaint came from an anonymous civil servant who, we have now established, works at Customs and Excise. It referred to a member of the public importing a number of photographs and slides of young boys, through the post from Holland.

I should explain that, whilst the importation of indecent or obscene articles is prohibited, a criminal offence only arises when there is a deliberate attempt to evade prohibition. Customs and Excise policy with regard to cases such as those involving indecent or obscene articles depicting children in sexual situations is to institute criminal proceedings where there is sufficient evidence. There have been at least six such prosecutions in 1983 all successful, some of which were against people in responsible positions. If, however, there is not sufficient evidence, they confine their actions to seizure of the articles concerned.  That most often is the case with postal Importation; simply to be the addressee of a postal package is not evidence of an offence.  This is what happened in the case referred to by your correspondent where customs seized and destroyed the photographs and slides but did not have the necessary evidence to prosecute. Beyond that, I do not think the Customs should supply to the police names and addresses of everyone receiving obscene or indecent articles, regardless of whether an offence has been established.

The second case on which there was some comment referred to a youth of 16 and his employment at Buckingham Palace some - BLANK -.  His - BLANK -had written to you in very general terms to suggest that the young man had become a homosexual during his -BLANK - period of employment at Buckingham Palace and that he had alleged that homosexuality was prevalent there. The letter also said that the young man went to work in Canada, following the end of his employment in the Royal Household and that he subsequently worked in -BLANK-.

I can confirm that the young man in question was employed at Buckingham Palace between -BLANK- -BLANK-.  I understand that one year was then a normal period for someone in his position.  As far as is known, he went direct to another place of employment but not to Canada.

I have to say, however, that it is extremely difficult to comment on the accuracy of the allegations in the letter. The allegations are of a very general nature and a considerable time has elapsed since the events to which the letter refers.  This puts substantial obstacles in the way of any more detailed investigations and, on the basis of this letter alone, it is difficult to conclude that it would be practicable to undertake such an investigation and to bring it to a satisfactory conclusion.

Continuation: Page 2:

I need hardly assure you that the Royal Household is extremely concerned at these unsubstantiated allegations and it is , of course, their policy to take every step to avoid an occurrence of such as is alleged. There is nobody currently employed in the Royal Household who is under the age of 18.

I do understand, however, the distress expressed in the letter about the estrangement between the mother and her son and the reason for it and, as you know, I share your deep concerns that the law should give adequate protection to children and should be properly enforced. For reasons I have given, it is difficult to use the letter you gave me for this purpose but I am sure this will not deter you and others from continuing to present specific evidence, if it comes to your attention , to the proper authorities.

Yours,

Leon.  


COMMENTS:


  1. Brittan listened to Dickens' 'evidence' and conferred with the Director o f Public Prosecutions at length about all the allegations. There was no attempt to cover-up or otherwise interfere with the course of justice.
  2. Two Letters containing allegations were passed to the police by Brittan to see if any action was necessary.
  3. Other evidence presented by Dickens was unworthy or so anecdotal as to be useless (e.g. a letter written to Dickens by a woman who said she saw a PIE advertisement but had no evidence of it and could not reproduce it.  Or Dickens had presented 'evidence' which related to cases which had already been prosecuted or fully investigated.
  4. Brittan gives an in-depth analysis of two cases which Dickens had caused to appear in the press. He addresses the accusations directly and explains the background and why Customs and Excise were unable to bring a prosecution.
  5. The next case which had been the subject of much publicity following Dickens' grandstanding was the case of a 16 year old boy who, Dickens said, had been 'groomed' into homosexuality at Buckingham Palace.  This turned out to be a historic complaint made to Dickens, not by the boy, but by his ESTRANGED mother. Reading between the lines it appears that the mother wrote to Dickens, who was actively anti-gay,  claiming that the boy had been turned against her by  his  gay friends.  As we pointed out in our piece on Dickens above, this was a period when the move to legalise homosexuality was being actively fought in devious ways by Christian activists like Dickens who were fundamentally religiously opposed to liberalisation of laws.  Brittan points out that at the time Dickens made his allegations there was no one under the age of 18 employed at the palace. In other words any gay activity AT THE TIME DICKENS CLAIMED THERE WAS A GAY VICE RING AT THE PALACE, would have been entirely legal.   Brittan concludes, rightly, that there was no chance of a successful investigation of the woman's claims considering the age of the allegations and the breach of trust between her and the son who had not apparently made any complaint.
  6. Lastly, rather than try to bury Dickens's allegations Brittan says that if he (Dickens) can find any weighty evidence to support his view then Brittan will expect him to deliver it to him.   Thus Brittan actually challenges Dickens to get more evidence to prove his contentions.   This Dickens was unable to do.

Therefore it is now clear that Dickens 'Westminster' Dossier is, like his dossier on Satanic Ritual Abuse, a wicked compilation of bigotry from his Christian evangelical friends who are willing to misuse the police and the democratic process to further their prejudice against minority religions and different sexual genders.  It was seized upon in 2014 by the Child Scare Industry in an attempt to stampede parliament into enacting further laws to expand it's own remit and gain more funds for chasing phantom abusers using worked-up cases of  Historical Sex Abuse.  They thought you, the British public, would be dim enough not to notice what they were up to, but the SAFF has once again saved the day and brought you the unvarnished TRUTH. 



We want this website to represent a fair cross-section of opinion. Would you like to add more Information, Observations, Personal Experience,
 Criticisms or Corrections to SAFF files and publications?
Then please click here to go to our Feedback Forum - You can leave a message anonymously or just read what others have to say.