Harvey Proctor - nasty, greasy, rent-boy abusing liar. I have written elsewhere a couple of articles, attempting to paint a picture of how all this abuse by establishment figures occurred in the Seventies and Eighties. And why it was not stopped at the time.
It was all about networks. Gentlemen's circles. Primarily in London. People who thought that their secret lives were above the law. Whether those secret lives revolved around harmless activities, like a night out playing poker with the boys at plush clubs in Mayfair, hanging out with Lords at those Greek gentlemen's clubs in Piccadilly, or more nefarious past-times, like child abuse parties in the East End, illegal arms-dealing, Cash-for-Questions, and the like.
For sure, much of this activity centered on those with Tory affiliation. But not all of it (cf. Lord Janner, Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith). I knew bits and pieces. The whacky right-wingers, and their machinations to defeat what they saw as the coming internal socialist/communist threat. Harvey Proctor was one of those. Which is how I knew him. Hugh Simmonds, the subject of my forthcoming book, before he got involved with the arms-dealing network in the Eighties, was one of those right-wing manipulators in the Sixties and Seventies, along with Harvey Proctor. Who was never to be seen without a 'rough trade' young man in tow. Often at the annual Conservative Party conferences. To the discomfort of the other attendees. The more worldly-wise of whom knew what was going on.
The essential point of my earlier articles is that these circles overlapped. The lobbyist who engineered the Cash-for-Questions network also arranged the nauseating child-abuse parties at Elm House. Hugh was laundering money from the illicit arms deals in the Eighties, had been a part of those groups of right-wingers in the Seventies organizing against what they perceived as pernicious left-wing influence, all the while playing bridge with Iain Macleod in a club in Curzon Street.
I believe the London establishment of the current is resisting investigation of the pedophile rings as vehemently as it is, not just because of the pedophile allegations themselves, but because of the other networks that might get exposed.
In the meantime, Harvey? You're full of sanctimonious shit. It's not just that you were a whacko, weirdo right-wing nut. That's forgivable. You were a nasty piece of work. Who thought nothing of traipsing your sordid sex life around in public. We knew what you were doing. Maybe not the underage part. But we saw the rent-boys. And even the public ones skirted the edge. So. Stop with the recreation of history. You may well be innocent of the specific allegations being made. But your lifestyle renders you open to suspicion, and therefore to investigation. Man up.
As for us. Those of us who saw. Who raised an eyebrow. But who never took to one side. Never told him to stop. Never looked further. We are to blame too. We stand culpable. There is not much we can do about the past. But we can do something now. With this caveat. Harvey did. For sure. But we stood to one side. We are not the criminals. But we need to be a little less sanctimonious about the fervor with which we condemn others. Historic crime needs to be addressed. Those who perpetrated need to be prosecuted, so that those who have suffered may receive some measure of justice. But it does not help if those of us who were there, even if we did not know, because we did not look closely enough, it helps nothing if we pretend, if we cover our own shame by shouting the loudest, throwing rocks the hardest. We bear some of the guilt too. We need to man up, as well.
Posts
