Pedophilia  PIE

UK Government document confirms over 2,000 child sex abuse files destroyed

Posted on 3 February, 2015by Undercover1

Click on image to enlarge


Today a 37 page file regarding the central role that the late British PM Margaret Thatcher and the late Attorney-General Sir Michael Havers played in the cover-up of the sexual – including possible paedophile – activities of Sir Peter Hayman (MI6) was released. However, we can now reveal the exact number of files on child abuse evidence that were either lost or destroyed during the period 1979 – 1999. The figures (see below) are staggering. We also provide a timeline of 62 instances of child sex abuse by establishment figures, as well as the verbatim responses by Havers when questioned about Hayman.

The full list of UK Government documents (retained or lost) from 1979 – 1999 on child sex abuse can be found here. In addition to the infamous 114 files ‘lost’, it shows that a staggering 2,074 files were destroyed..

Havers – the brother of Baroness Butler-Sloss, who was forced to resign from the historical child sex abuse inquiry – is believed to be one of many names listed in the notorious ‘Holy Grail’ contact list of Jeffrey Epstein, the US billionaire and convicted paedophile and close confidant of Prince Andrew. Documents relating to the legal proceedings against Epstein and Andrew Windsor can be found here.

A handwritten memo from Margaret Thatcher to Sir Michael Havers

Regarding the 37 page report, this includes a letter by Margaret Thatcher (see image above) on 10 Downing Street notepaper, dated March 20, 1981, to Sir Michael Havers . The letter says: “So that there be no doubt, I leave to your judgment whether or not you are interviewed on media or TV about the Hayman matter.” Signed “Margaret”, the memo is the final chronological entry in the file which has been released to the National Archives, titled “PREM 19/588 SECURITY. Sir Peter Hayman: allegations against former public official of unnatural sexual proclivities; security aspects.” (See also image at end of this article.)

Hayman, whose pseudonym was “Henderson”, had worked for MI6 and was also the high commissioner in Canada. “Henderson” was later revealed via Private Eye to be Sir Peter Hayman. In 1981, Geoffrey Dickens MP asked Sir Michael Havers, the Attorney-General “if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail”. Havers replied, “I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ (Sir Thomas Chalmers Hetherington QC) advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence.” Dickens then asked, “How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highly sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?”

Here is a transcript of a Q & A between Dickens and Havers on 19 March 1981:

Mr. Dickens asked the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail.


Havers: “In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of an obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons. Altogether a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under section 11 of the Post Office Act 1953 or for any other offence. Among the considerations he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited. Subsequently the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence 140W with a tenth person. The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene section 11 of the 1953 Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post. It has been suggested that Sir Peter Hayman was considered as a possible defendant following the police investigation into the conduct of the Paedophile Information Exchange which led to the recent trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession. I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions’ advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence. The Director of Public Prosecutions and I remain determined that, where the evidence justifies it, prosecutions will be brought in cases involving sexual acts with children or offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978—indecent photographs of children.”


Here is a transcript of a follow-up Q & A to Havers on 8 April 1981:


Mr. Stokes asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on 19 March, Official Report, col. 139–40, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions gave special treatment to Sir Peter Hayman by taking steps to prevent his indentity being revealed in court.


Havers: “No special treatment was afforded to Sir Peter Hayman and no steps were authorised or taken to protect his identity in evidence given to the court during the trial of O’Carroll and other members of the executive committee of Paedophile Information Exchange. I made this clear in answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on 6 April—[Vol. 2, c. 682–83.]—to which I refer my hon. Friend. Furthermore, although the indictment in that case was amended before trial, this was because Treasury Counsel had doubts, following a preliminary hearing, as to whether the wording of the original charges might, as a matter of law, be open to objection. The amendment did not arise from any wish to protect the indentity of any person. The material of a pornographic nature found in the possession of Sir Peter Hayman was not relied on by the prosecution at the trial. There was, so far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware, no evidence whatsoever of Sir Peter Hayman having received or sent by post any obscene photograph of a child or young person or of his having taken such photographs or of his having committed any other act which might have been an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The mere possession of obscene material whether relating to children or adults is not in itself a criminal offence. The Director’s decision not to take proceedings under the Post Office Act against Sir Peter Hayman and others was taken in January 1979 before he received any papers relating to the activities of O’Carroll and other members of the executive committee of PIE.”


The context of the coverup:


A page of the previously secret file confirms that Hayman was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange. (PIE)