VIP paedophiles: George Kennedy Young, Tory gays and the Society for Individual Freedom
VIP Paedophiles: a look at reporting on the allegations that famous, connected and rich faces tun a child abuse ‘ring’.
The Sun (Page 4): “MI6 BOSS ‘RAN VIP PAEDO RING'”
Those inverted commas alert us to the fact what we are set to hear more accusations but little if any fact.
Steve Hakes hears the claim that “Ex-MI6 Deputy Director George Kennedy was ‘the person behind what was gong on'”. The claim, we learn was made by Labour MP John Mann but “he did not name Mr Kennedy.”
But we won’t hear from Kennedy because he died in 1990.
The Sun Nation adds:
Mr Mann did not name the former spy chief as an abuser – but said it was clear he was a “key figure”. He said: “He is the person behind what was going on. We need to know more about him.”
But why is his name in the spotlight?
The dynamite claims stem from the contents of second child abuse dossier of evidence handed to late Tory peer Lord Brittan in early 1984 by then Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens.
Says Mann:
This is an original, I have spoken and met and got a copy from the person who personally handed it to Geoffrey Dickens who then personally gave it to Leon Brittan. And what it says is, first line – GK Young heads up a Powellite faction known as Tory Action. GK Young, George Kennedy Young, was deputy director of MI6 in the past, long dead. The allegations are that he manipulated a group of people and that within that there were paedophile rings. And it goes into detail – who it’s alleged were involved and where.
“I won’t give all the locations because some would be I think sensitive and would potentially identify people – but London is one, Greater Manchester is another, North Yorkshire is a third one.”
Mann has been vocal:
The Mail picks up the story:
Mr Mann said GK Young may be key in finding out what happened to the dossier.
He said: ‘I think it’s worth saying another thing about George Kennedy Young, because George Kennedy Young was involved in many dubious activities. He formed something called Unison, which was some kind of private army he tried to get going. I’ve seen a range of background documents that would be of interest to anyone campaigning on the Shrewsbury pickets and on infiltration of the miner’s strike with names that would correlate with that. There is a lot of allegations about him attempting to undermine both the Heath government and the Wilson government. He was clearly a manipulator. He’s rather key to what was going on. I don’t know why he’s so prominent, I don’t know why the Society for Individual Freedom he set up is named either in this, but he is a significant figure. And it may give some reason as to why things then disappeared.”
That takers us to the Telegraph’s obituary of Professor Peter Campbell
Professor Peter Campbell, who has died aged 78, was founding head of the Department of Politics and International Relations at Reading University; he was also doubly courageous in being both openly homosexual and a loyal Tory. As chairman and later vice-president of the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality, Campbell fought an uphill and often lonely battle to persuade his fellow Tories that “homosexuality, like left-handedness, is a fact of life about some people who do not differ in other respects from the majority” and not, as some claimed, a matter of “seduction, corruption, perversion or whim”…
At the time, it must have seemed a hopeless cause. While the identities of homosexual Conservative MPs were well known in the Westminster “village”, and while homosexuals were well represented in the party bureaucracy, to admit the truth openly was to risk both reputation and career…. Dr Adrian Rogers, chairman of the Conservative Family Campaign, said in 1991 that homosexuality was “a sterile, disease-ridden and God-forsaken relationship”.
And:
…he was always actively involved in the contemporary British political scene, serving during the 1950s as secretary of the Political Studies Association, chairman of the Institute of Electoral Research, council member of the Hansard Society and editor of Political Studies. He was also, for 30 years, co-president of the Reading University Conservative Association and was a vice-president of the Electoral Reform Society.
His politics were libertarian, and he was an active member and sometime chairman of the Society for Individual Freedom. In 1985, for example, he criticised the government for talking grandly about liberty while supporting a plethora of new paternalistic laws, including 291 new offences for which people could be fined or jailed. “Conservatives have recently celebrated Sir Robert Peel’s Tamworth Manifesto of 1834,” he recalled. “They might remember that Peel drastically pruned the criminal law when he was Home Secretary in the 1820s. He set a splendid example to today’s ministers in all departments.”
There was a close connection between his libertarian principles and his campaign for homosexual rights.
Society for Individual Freedom website lays out its beliefs:
What we believe
That the individual, rather than the State, is the font of liberty, morality and authority.
That private citizens should have the freedom to act as they wish provided their actions do not harm others.
That the law should exist principally to guarantee individual liberty and not to act as a paternalistic guardian.
In the primacy of freely negotiated contract.
That an efficient free-market economy benefits all, and that the State’s economic function should mainly be limited to the prevention of violence and fraud and similar obstacles to honest competition and co-operation.
That taxes in the United Kingdom are too high and erode individual responsibility and enterprise.
That State assistance should be concentrated upon cases of unavoidable hardship.
That official secrecy, except in limited cases such as genuine national defence, is unacceptable in a free society.
In Parliament as the supreme law-making body in the United Kingdom.
That to preserve the liberties of private individuals we need more independent-minded Members of Parliament, a stronger Second Chamber, and more effective parliamentary control over the executive.
That there is too much influence on government from pressure groups that call for legislation of an unnecessary and restrictive nature.
That justice shall be administered by courts that are not subject to political pressure, and that government decisions have no validity unless founded on clear legal authority.
Last amended and formally approved on the 27th October 2004.
Such are the facts.
Posted: 5th, November 2015 | In: Politicians, Reviews Comment | TrackBack | Permalink
