Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Private life of gay former Tory MP and Thatcher aide under spotlight

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Robert in S. Kensington 25 Oct 2012, 12:50pm

    Why is this issue being raised I wonder? In which context was Labour MP Tom Watson speaking and why now?

    1. Jimmy Savile and the Pandora effect …

  2. The words of Nick Davies highlight the random injustice surrounding the old convictions for soliciting on a ‘depends who you are’ basis. The recent amnesty of the Freedoms Bill should be extended to include the soliciting convictions which had nothing whatever to do with underage sex but whose connotations extend to anyone trying to cope with a CRB disclosure of soliciting. For the ordinary man not well enough connected to escape the due process of that time, this conviction was the homophobically inspired result of an agent provocateur and yet it still appears on records to blight future lives because, quite apart from its calling gay sex immoral, it leaves an ambiguous deduction that either underage sex or prostitution of some sort had been sought. Cruising for sex was all it took to be convicted of s.32 even until 2003. The campaign must go on to get a disregard for this conviction from s.32 of the 1956 sexual offences act since it has no place in the modern world and ruins lives.

  3. This is just the tip of the ice berg.

    Paedophilia is rampant in all seats of power and has been since time immemorial.

    But only now, finally, is the truth now bubbling to the surface and the excrement will surely hit the fan big time, saturating names from Parliament, the entertainment industry, the Church, the constabulary, the NHS, the third sector charities/quangoes and more besides..

    The innocent children have suffered too long while the rest of us have been hood-winked by a power structure that fast-tracks phychopaths to the top of the food chain and which practices Satanism as its religion.

    Oh, and a bit rich of Edwina Currie to hint at illegal goings-on when it was SHE who handed Jimmy Savile the keys to Broadmoor to come and go as he pleased.

    Sociopaths one and all.

    1. while the rest of us have been hood-winked by a power structure that fast-tracks phychopaths to the top of the food chain

      I don’t know about being ‘hoodwinked’. Isn’t it now thought that most high-achievers, whether in politics, the arts, business or sport, indeed in pretty much all fields, have to have psychopathic tendencies to succeed at all costs in the first place? Nice people seldom have the ruthless ambition that unusual success seems to require, yet all too often collude in respecting money and or power.

      1. Absolutely yes, Rehan, but only now is this being widely acknowledged and the masses are starting to awaken to the fact that the world is spinning off its axis because psychopaths occupy all the key seats of power and make decisions that do not take into account the lives and financial well-being of ordinary people.

        There is also a lot to be said for psychopaths who get fast-tracked by the ‘old boys network':- if they show they’re prepared to sell their soul, abuse children and follow Satanism then the revolving doors will swivel faster for these deranged lunatics.

        And of course this all goes on behind closed doors at their places of scheming/worship so, yes, they do hoodwink the public in this respect.

        Ever wonder why our institutions have imploded in the last 20 years – from a medical establishment that now pushes the Liverpool Care Pathway to a police service that required hundreds of its members to cover-up the truth about Hillsborough?

        As I said, the tip of the ice berg…

        1. I agree with you in general, but you lose me when you start speaking of Satanism.

          Also, it’s worth bearing in mind that some of our institutions have been discredited and or are imploding precisely because they’re held to account in a way that they wouldn’t have been in the past.

          1. I hear you, Rehan, and would refer you to the 1999 movie Eyes Wide Shut, the last movie Stanley Kubrick made before he, allegedly, died of natural causes.

            That was an attempt to bring into mainstream awareness the bizarre occultist practises of the elite.

            Satanism requires childhood sacrifices and there is now just too much evidence of how a Satanical mindset runs the world us to ignore it any longer.

            The clue was in the movie’s name, Eyes Wide Shut.

            We’re it being made today it would probably be called In Plain Sight.

            There is no doubt that a mass awakening of human consciousness is occurring right now, too powerful for these sick, twisted truths to remain hidden for much longer.

            Watch the cowardly psychos/peadoes start running for the hills when they realise they, finally, have nowhere to hide…

          2. That There Other David 25 Oct 2012, 7:01pm

            Please have the decency to admit that amongst Christians and Christian organisations there has also been rampant paedophilia committed and covered up for centuries.

            Labelling paedophiles as Satanists may allow you to mentally distance yourself from their actions, but it does not help sort the problem.

          3. I would most certainly wager that the Church harbours more Satanists masquerading as Christians than any other institution, and that Satanism lies at the heart of the centuries old Christian persecution of gay people because a God of love would love all equally and unconditionally.

          4. the 1999 movie Eyes Wide Shut, the last movie Stanley Kubrick made before he, allegedly, died of natural causes.

            Dear me, Samuel B, curb the imagination! The film was based on Schnitzler’s 1926 Traumnovelle, and for a man to die at 70 of a heart attack is hardly unusual!

          5. Yes indeed Rehan, but what personal experience or flight of fancy exactly did Schnitzler base Traumnovelle on?

            It was clearly based on occultist goings on that had a grounding in reality, even back in the Twenties.

            Clearly Kubrick decided the time was right to film it, and note he came out of retirement specifically to make it after a hiatus of many years.

            I am not stating that Kubrick did not die of natural causes, only alluding to the fact that that was the official explanation given for his death.

            Were it not for the fact that Eyes Wide Shut is known to have annoyed a lot of people in very high places, I would be equally accepting of that explanation as you clearly are.

    2. The worst of all socio/psychopaths are those who can even contemplate supporting or turn a blind eye to the flagrant abuse and the deliberate and draconian behaviour of a government hell bent on making the most vulnerable of our society suffer beyond belief. That happens on a daily basis in front of your very own eyes.

      1. I have often wondered how this look the other way culture was able to take hold, particularly in recent years where blatant abuse of power has, for example, enabled the NHS to deteriorate to such a standard of neglect that it is able to cite that neglect as an excuse for patients dying of thirst and hunger on open wards, and how the truth behind an event like Hillsborough could be covered-up by nigh on 200 people.

        I was musing about this to a friend the other day when he pointed out how psychometric testing can determine a person’s nature via a serious of multiple choice questions.

        A psychometric test can decipher whether a person has empathy and will likely speak out in the face of abuse of power, or exhibit sociopathic/psychopathic traits and conspire in such abuse by getting on with their work and looking the other way.

        It is now known that major investment banks employ those with clearly defined psychopathic characteristics, but it would seem so too now does the public sector.

    3. More overblown rhetoric eh Samuel? Do you ever take a balanced approach to any of your argument? You are like the office gossip, embellishing the story to suit your own agenda & in doing so you blow things out of all proportion.

      The Jimmy Savile affair is sickening & horrendous for all the victims & families; he was a vile man. It seems to me that whilst it is extremely important to explore who knew what & when, the media & in particular the Newspapers are having a field day focusing on the BBC wrong doings & the victims stories seem to have been lost.

      From reading your comments it would appear that you relish all these events as a way to highlight your distaste for many British institutions – what you are forgetting is that there are real victims & families behind the story, so it leaves me wondering what your motives really are??

      You mention psychopaths who are heartless, empty individuals – seems you could be describing yourself given your comments posted here!

      1. Who asked you W6?

        Kindly butt out!

        1. I am perfectly entitled to express my opinion on this particular subject & specifically your comments on this subject – whatever happened to your mantra of freedom of thinking & thought?

          If you are going to post in a public comment forum then you should expect your comments to be scrutinised & counter comments made; surely you of all people would be the first person to agree with such a statement?

          1. I thought we had an agreement of non-agitation and not responding to one another’s comments W6?

            It was one you requested but which you deem fit to breach as it suits you, it seems.

            Which being the case, allow me to point out that, since you are making comparisons to heartless, empty individuals, it it you who are the avid cheerleader for the most heartless, empty, psychopathic industry in the world:- one that kills more people than any other cause of death.

            I would assume, having claimed to have read Ben Goldacre’s devastating critique of the pharma industry’s shady practises, Big Pharma, you would have reached the same conclusion by now and from this point on we would be happy bedfellows?

            Or is your denial of big pharma’s wrongdoings resolute?

          2. “it it you who are the avid cheerleader for the most heartless, empty, psychopathic industry in the world……….”

            YOU have chosen to label me as an “avid cheerleader of big pharma” because I am very much of the opinion that modern HIV treatment is very effective & allows many millions of people to get on with life – you on the other hand dismiss these advances in the face of post marketing evidence, clinical evidence & the views of eminent HIV experts.

            There is no known cure for HIV at the moment Samuel & the drugs we have available today keep many of us alive, something you seem to completely gloss over. There are currently no known natural products that can prevent HIV replication FACT. Eating well & good nutrition play a vital role in maintaining a strong immune system BUT it is treatment that prevents the decline of the vital CD4 cells in the body.

            Goldcre makes some interesting points – but as with everything I prefer to take a balanced view, unlike your good self!

          3. I am not naive to think that large Corporations are not in the business of making vast sums of money money, neither am I blind to some of the lobbying tactics that are used. I would question some of the sharp practice that goes on, particularly with recent fines with GSK……….however there is a balance to be struck & I am many thousands of people are grateful for the R&D that has produced a range of modern HIV drugs that means that people can now live with HIV as opposed to die from AIDS.

            Perhaps you would prefer people to die from AIDS – explain how that isn’t heartless & empty. If for one minute you would open your mind from your default conspiracy theory about HIV & Pharma Co’s then perhaps we could have a serious conversation…….now stick to the topic in hand there’s a good chap!

          4. Correction:- the book in question is of course titled Bad Pharma.

      2. You are right about the importance of caring about (and for) the victims, but this forum should not descend to ad hominem, highly personal attacks.
        W6, you and Samuel make articulate, well-reasoned arguments. Don’t let your views and valid debating points be obscured by personal attacks!
        With respect, I want to hear your views on the subject of the tread, W6, not your views on Samuel.

  4. No wonder the tories didn’t want to “promote homosexuality”. They didn’t want any competition.

  5. Paul from Brighton 25 Oct 2012, 8:46pm

    I don’t wish to muse or comment on whatever the late Sir Peter Morrison got up to in his private life, as the man is now dead and unable to defend himself.

    However, what I do find strange about gay men (or those who are supposedly/reported to be gay) is how many of them have worked in high-profile government positions – right across the world for either viciously homophobic political parties, or governments.

    Sir Peter Morrison being a prime example. Then in the US we had Edgwar J Hoover, then US President Bushes (both father and son) had a gay man as head of their parties legal department, and there are others who I haven’t the wit to recall the names of at the moment.

    What is with us? What do we love about working for the enemy?

    1. Unbelievable as it may seem, Paul, many of these high-powered figures were severely self-loathing closet cases who expressed their extreme internalised homophobia by persecuting and oppressing the rights of gay people.

      We have to remember that psychology teaches us that psychopaths are, at heart (or what passes for a heart) inherently powerless people, which is why they thirst for power and manipulate themselves into positions of authority using charm, fake sincerity and flattery.

      At worst, they derive power from the sexual abuse and subjugation of the weakest members of society, children, hence why there is rampant child abuse wherever there are people with authority and power.

      They can never get enough power because their souls are empty vacuums and so the abuse perpetuates and a code of silence ensures they can act with impunity:- particularly as those with the authority to break paedophile rings are invariably a part of the same problem.

      1. Paul from Brighton 25 Oct 2012, 9:22pm

        Samuel, I wasn’t thinking in terms of child abusers, just gay men working for either homophobic political parties/organisations or governments.

        None of the gay men I’m thinking of were particularly ambitious or power hungry. I had in mind, Michael Hess, who was head of legal for the Bush administration during the AIDS epidemic in the US. Sadly, he lost his life to AIDS. But his story, soon to be made into a movie, is fascinating. He certainly wasn’t a child abuser.

        I also know a number of gay men who worked for the Tory party during Maragret Thatcher’s era, who again I wouldn’t consider as being overtly power-hungry or child abusers.

        I think maybe you misinterpreted what I was asking – it’s why do so many of us (myself at one stage in my earlier working life) work for those who are positively against us?

        1. I don’t think you can discount ambition, but I think many of the older generation also often felt it would be a way of deflecting accusations from themselves. Others may just have felt that their politics and their sexuality were separate issues. There are also those who yearn to feel accepted as individuals by people who would as a general rule be less than welcoming – you can find this in a racial or religious context quite often.

          But, just as with Asian and black BNP members, I don’t think you can speak of ‘us’ as though it’s some form of behavioural tic that’s associated with sexuality.

        2. Perhaps it is because they naturally think the same way on the majority of policies but at the same time are socially progressive – an attempt at burning the party to the ground (from the inside) and starting afresh?

  6. Staircase2 25 Oct 2012, 9:41pm

    Why is it no one has pointed out that a) Tom Watson made it categorically clear that he was NOT talking about Sir Peter Morrison and b) it is ironic that this smokescreen abut Sir Peter comes so shortly after the introduction of legislation to ensure that gay men have previous criminal convictions quashed where the ‘crime’ concerned, if it were taking place now, would no longer be considered illegal.

    Even if Edwina Currie’s allegations concerning his sexual behaviour is correct, the age of the people in question is not relevant given that they were supposedly over 16; which as Edwina Currie quite rightly points out is now over the legal age of consent.

    It is disingenuous of her to claim she isn’t sure if this would now be considered ‘illegal’ or not, when she clearly knows that it wouldn’t…

    As to the allegations raised by Tom Watson, this is a serious matter and should be dealt with properly and fully without recourse to homophobic prejudice.

    1. OBEs, MBEs, CBEs and the likes are nothing more than archaic institutional rewards tailored specifically to support an abusive power system called empire. What is honorable about that?

      1. I’m not sure of the relevance of your comment but, whether imperial or (like the UK) not, is there any nation other than Switzerland that doesn’t have some sort of a national honours system?

        1. The relevance can only be noticed by those willing to dig deeper. I’m talking about an abusive power system that gives some people titles to appear honorable to the gullible. All sorts of abuse (not only sexual) can thrive underneath the “honorable” layer, and cover ups become the norm to keep the system from falling into disrepute.

          1. And I do not need to point out that we have our own OBEs and MBEs knighted for their work in the charity sector.

            Certainly adds credence to the regular allegations that
            these controversial individuals serve an interest beyond the gay communities they claim to be representing.

            Isn’t that right, Sir Nick?

          2. ………..which “regular allegations” are these Samuel, perhaps you would like to dig deeper & expose these allegations……..or are you talking about allegations made in a Sunday red top some 20 years ago, which incidentally were never proven! Given your conspiracy theory world view & your reliance on very narrow reference points, I doubt you can provide hard evidence to back up your statement!

            Seems to me that those who shout the loudest do the very least to solve the problem & in doing so allow people like Jimmy Savile to continue with their disgusting outrages against others. To suggest that some alleged financial incentive links with charities & pharmaceutical companies are on a parallel with the actions of a serial sexual predator is quite frankly insane & shows no respect for the victims of sexual abuse.

            Perhaps if you took a detailed interest at some of the topics you comment on your views would be better informed on many levels!

          3. Oh go away you ‘orrible little man!

          4. It takes anyone with only a modicum of intelligence to deduce that Sir Nick with his various gongs and knighthoods does not serve the gay community:- he serves the system.

            Nuff said, move along.

        2. It doesn’t matter if we strip individual “honorable” crooks of their titles when the honouring system itself is rotten in its base, as is the case of the empire.

          1. The honours system is a joke. Chirs Hoy gets a knighthood for biking a bit fast, Steve Redgrave for being a good rower. Abilities they were born with, no amount of training can make me an Olympian.
            Meanwhile Bruce Forsyth worked for charities for decades, and was a popular entertainer for nearly 3/4 of a century, and only got a knighthood through public pressure!

  7. auntie babs 26 Oct 2012, 12:37am

    so he was kiddly fiddling boys when the age of consent was 21? when I know that these boys were under 16 THEN I’ll condemn.

    1. Brilliantly put auntie babs!!

    2. “kiddy fiddling”???? What an appalling, insensitive way to describe paedophilia. It shows no regard to the victims of the likes of Jimmy Savile shame on you both!

      1. W6 standing for the moral high ground?

        Oh pur-leeeaaase!!!

        1. Seems as ever you are an isolated voice on these boards, W6.

          You are here with an agenda, but one which most right-minded people are now able to decipher for the corporate cheer leading it is.

          I would however note that your debating and oratory skills have come a long way since we began our jousting all of two years ago, so I guess we at least have that to be grateful for.

          And these boards without the customary W6 sideswipe would, admittedly, be a far duller place.

          So long may W6 continue to be the resident irritant and agitator! :)

          1. Praise indeed from Samuel……have you had a bump to the head or a few too many pink gins dear??

            If nothing else I have to admit that it has been a Latin g curve keeping up with such a challenging & determined opponent, but I seldom give up on difficult tasks!

            I guess we are more similar than you care to admit Samuel I very seldom follow the crowd in my thinking & like to challenge the establishment – I have always found an evidence based approach provides results, certainly has in my dealings with Local Authorities & Gov Departments.

            My chosen subject needs to be evidence based because as there is far too much myth & misrepresentation amongst gay men & the public in general. Anecdotal evidence is also essential as the experience of others validates the science in my view.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all