Child Sexual Abuse · Court Cases · Harvey Proctor · In the News · Justice System · London · Operation Malswick - Martin Allen · Operation Midland - Non-recent · Politicians · Richmond · Uncategorized

HARVEY PROCTOR – The Evidence the Mainstream Media Failed to Report




Further to my previous blog about the rather colourful life of Harvey Proctor, I felt compelled to blog an update following a number of matters that came out of the Carl Beech trial – matters that the mainstream media have chosen not to follow up.  I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why.  Whatever your feelings towards Carl, it is important for the law to be seen to be fair – as the scales of justice signify.

In his book ‘Credible and True‘, Proctor expressed his thanks to a number of journalists that were applying pressure on Carl, which never sat easily with me because there seemed to be a concerted effort by a select few ‘journalists’ to discredit Carl whilst a police investigation was ongoing. It then goes without saying that the very same journalists have since written pieces following the conclusion of the trial that aren’t objective in the slightest and have failed to report all the facts, particularly the information which follows.

Carl Beech court case
Carl Beech


This update refers to information that Mark Watts (who attended each day of the trial) had issued in his statement following the conclusion of the trial.



I want to look at the elements of Mark’s statement one by one – Elements that the mainstream media have oddly chosen to ignore.  Proctor is currently doing the rounds and talking to anyone that will listen, but not one single interviewer has asked about the following evidence:

The court heard on June 21 (without the jury) that before Harvey Proctor pleaded guilty in 1987 to four counts of gross indecency with two [underage] men aged 17 and 20, police had gathered witness statements that tended to show a sexual interest of the then MP in “young boys.”

As was noted in court, no prosecution was pursued in relation to this specific material.

So, when Proctor was arrested and charged with indecency against two males (one of whom was just 16 at the time), the police discovered he had a penchant for “young boys” but this element of the inquiry was not pursued.

David Napley was representing Proctor in court at that time – the Tory go-to man.  Is this another example of deference shown to those in positions of public prominence, as we have been shown throughout the Westminster strand of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse?


The court also heard that ‘Operation Midland’, when searching Harvey Proctor’s home in 2015, seized “a school uniform with a child’s underwear” – for a child of 13 to 14 – that was “blood stained”, and that Proctor – who was not arrested – refused to provide a blood sample.

Martin Allen

One of the allegations Carl made was that Proctor was involved in the murder of a boy whom he believed to be Martin Allen.  Martin disappeared on his way home from school on 5th November 1979 wearing his school uniform.  This begs the question – did Op Midland share this find with Op Malswick – the operation set up to investigate Martin’s disappearance?  If so, did they extract any forensic evidence from the blood and check it against Martin’s brother?  Even more basic – why didn’t they inform Kevin of this find and show a photograph of the uniform to Kevin so that he could either identify or dismiss it as that belonging to Martin?  Kevin says he heard nothing whatsoever from Malswick for over a year, and only then was he allowed to see 12 witness statements.

Martin’s uniform looked like this:


It’s also interesting to note that Proctor’s home that was searched was actually a grace and favour home on the Belvoir estate, given to him by the Duke and Duchess of Rutland in return for his work showing round groups of visitors – including school children.


That aside, even more interestingly, the Duke was connected rather bizarrely to the 1987 case of indecency against Proctor.  Someone tried to blackmail Robert Maxwell in an attempt to gag him from exposing anything further about Proctor.  A mysterious well-spoken man phoned Maxwell insisting that The People STOP printing stories about Proctor, otherwise some rather compromising details of an alleged relationship between Maxwell’s daughter Ghislaine, and the Duke of Rutland would surface.  Rather than succumb to the threats, Maxwell splashed it across the front page instead.




Yes, Ghislaine Maxwell.  Yes, THAT Ghislaine Maxwell.  Ghislaine Maxwell, close associate of Jeffrey Epstein, the procurer of girls for the rich and famous, convicted paedophile and yet again, centre of another media storm after previously surpressed records regarding his farce of a prison sentence was successfully challenged in court.

Jeffrey Epstein – for those living in a cave – was convicted in 2008 of paedophilia.  A number of women came forward to allege that they were trafficked as teenagers as playthings for the rich and famous.  Epstein is extremely well connected, counting Prince Andrew and Sarah Ferguson as close associates, and his little black book (that I intend to cover in a separate blog post at some point in the future) was full of the most intriguing names.  Two of those names included the Duke and Duchess of Rutland.


So, my question is – did the blood-stained underwear and uniform found in Proctor’s home on the Belvoir estate belong to a boy or a girl?  If it’s a boy’s uniform, then the questions I’ve highlighted above need answering.  If it’s a girl’s uniform, then maybe those investigating the Epstein case may want to look a little further afield, especially in light of the next item found.


In addition, police seized a “notepad relating to child abuse” entitled ‘Bizarre Sex’.

Why were the contents of this not allowed to be submitted as evidence in this trial?


Moreover, defence counsel told the court, evidence in both police investigations showed “someone who enjoys inflicting pain for sexual pleasure.”

We know this to be true from the 1987 trial.  Journalist, Annette Witheridge, managed to obtain Proctor’s ‘torture gym’.


Also seized in the property search, the court heard, were restraints, straps, whip, crop, cane and “indecent photographs” (there was no indication as to the seriousness of the images, and the court assumed that they were legal.)

So not only were restraints found (aside from the ones seized in 1987 that Annette Witheridge had hold of), but indecent photographs were also found.  The Sunday People discovered evidence that Proctor took indecent pictures of the boys he procured for sexual kicks.  Proctor liked to photograph them after he had beaten them.  At first he tried to deny this but when presented with a photograph which was clearly taken in his flat in Fulham, he couldn’t deny it any longer.  Terry Dwyer/Allen gave an interview to The Sunday People in which he confirmed that Proctor took photographs of ‘naked boys.’

Again, as was noted in court, no action was taken.  Indeed police returned all of the seized itemsThe judge blocked cross-examination of Proctor – and refused a disclosure order – on any of this.

The only thing I have to say on this is to state the obvious – it was not a fair trial.  The court had already decided that the items seized from Proctor’s home were legal (despite no further evidence or cross examination), and so the outcome seemed predetermined.  Even more worrying is the fact that all these items were returned to Proctor by police.  I’d be intrigued to know who gave the order for that to happen.


Weirdly, the full episode of ‘After Dark‘ that had been uploaded on to YouTube that featured Proctor has suddenly disappeared.  Why?  For those that haven’t seen it, someone has helpfully uploaded the important elements of Proctor’s contribution – namely surprise/horror to discover that his nemisis, the journalist Annette Witheridge, had hold of Harvey’s torture chamber.


So, taking all this new information into account let’s look at some of the timeline of the stuff Proctor failed to include in his book ‘Credible and True.’

  • 1982 – Proctor meets Terry Dwyer/Allen at a Tory cocktail party and they embark on a two year relationship.
  • June 1986 – Proctor’s close friend and former private secretary to Enoch Powell, Jonathan Peter Denby, is involved in a police ambush alongside two Irish men and goes on the run for a year.  Stories begin to surface about his possible involvement in paramilitary activity in Northern Ireland which was dismissed by Denby’s uncle, President of the Law Society – Sir Richard Denby.  Proctor was due to meet Denby later that day and was the first person Denby contacted via telephone after he disappeared.
  • June 1986 – Proctor is found to be living with an 18-year old male, despite the age of consent being 21 at that time and his conviction.
  • 1986The Sunday People begin publishing details of Proctor’s sexual proclivities involving the purchase of youngsters (aka ‘rent boys’) from his former boyfriend, Terry Allen.  Allen would procure young runaways and sell them for sex whilst running the Lord Fox ‘Agency’.  Proctor would meet middlemen at places like Earls Court Station to collect a ‘rent boy’.
  • December 1986The Sunday People published a front page splash exposing a blackmail attept concerning Ghislaine Maxwell and the Duke of Rutland if they continued to print stories about Proctor.
  • 1987 – Proctor was allegedly found with a naked young Arab boy in his hotel room whilst on holiday with Terry Woods in Agadir, Morocco.
  • February 1987 – Proctor’s partner, Terry Woods, was found in his underwear outside Proctor’s flat in Fulham.
  • March 1987 – Following a five month investigation, the Metropolitan Police collate a dossier of evidence against Proctor, including a number of witness statements from ‘rent boys’, and decide to arrest Proctor.
  • March 1987 – Terry Woods arrested at airport whilst boarding a flight to the US in connection with allegations of Proctor’s use of ‘rent boys’.
  • April 1987 – Crime Squad officers arrest Terry Dwyer/Allen following a raid at his second home in Hull, where they found straps attached to a sofa, whips and other paraphenalia.
  • May 1987 – A newspaper report suggested that civil servant, Paul Sturgess, had been taking youngsters into the Commons to meet Proctor, sparking a security alert.
  • May 1987 – Proctor flatly denied all allegations against him.  He quits as MP for Billericay days later.
  • May 1987 – Proctor pleads guilty in court for underage indecency as is fined just under £1,500.
  • May 1987 – Both The Bognor Cane Company and Janus Magazine announce they will club together to pay Proctor’s fine.
  • 1987 – Proctor allows two males to stay at his Fulham flat.  Apparently, they attack Proctor, beating him unconcious with an ashtray and a hammer and threaten him.  Proctor decided not to report the incident to police due to his recent trial for underage sex.
  • September 1987Private Eye claim that Proctor was seen in Tunisia ‘exploring woodland with young urchins’ and also bought them a meal in his hotel.
  • March 1988 – Following his capture, Proctor’s close friend Jonathan Peter Denby was on trial for the police ambush.
  • June 1988 – Proctor appears on After Dark.
  • 1988 – Owned by Patsy Puddles, Proctor opens a shirt shop in Richmond, funded by a number of big names from the Conservative party.
  • July 1992 – Proctor is yet again ‘attacked’ by two young males in his shirt shop in Richmond in an apparent ‘homophobic’ attack whilst in the company of Neil and Christine Hamilton.
  • 2000 – Proctor’s shops are forced into compulsory liquidation.
  • 2014 – Photographs emerge online of Proctor leading groups of young school children around Belvoir castle.
  • 2014 – Proctor is accused of being part of a ‘Westminster paedophile ring’ and alleged to have murdered a school boy – later identified as possibly being Martin Allen.
  • 2015 – During a search of his home, police find blood-stained school uniform and underwear, as well as whips, restraints, canes etc and a notebook on child abuse entitled ‘Bizarre Sex’.
  • 2019 – The judge rules that none of the above evidence seized from Proctor’s home can be disclosed to the jury in the trial of Carl Beech.  The mainstream media fail to report it also.


And finally…

I understand Proctor appeared on a BBC Victoria Derbyshire show and remarked how BBC Panorama had helped to discredit Carl, before then accusing the BBC of bias by not allowing him to speak.

This is the same Proctor who calls for anonymity for those accused of crimes until they are charged, but who took it upon himself to name a number of suspects in the investigation during a rather distasteful public speech at St Ermin’s. Those suspects had – up until that point – remained anonymous.

8 thoughts on “HARVEY PROCTOR – The Evidence the Mainstream Media Failed to Report

  1. Why have I not seen this❓It’s never been revealed to me until I saw it with my own eyes! When the Redux version of the Henrique report came out I got a call from a very high up policeman at Scotty land yard giving me a heads up ! Well I went through it I found my name mentioned 6x including a portion saying the Stazi had put a Rippa on me and were intercepting emails and phone cons ergo apparently why the police (op/Malswick had not and still do not talk to me‼️


  2. Does anyone know how many witnesses came forward and made a statement? And does anyone know why all witnesses were not requested to give evidence? I further want to ask if the police took copy’s of the photos returned to Mr Proctor. I have a personal interest (let’s say) during the years of either 1984 / 1985 to this day I recall with clarity being either 16 or 17 years of age having being introduced and taken back to a flat in West London and plied with drink. When asked if I wanted to lay down in the bedroom I said yes. Maybe I fell asleep, maybe I didn’t, but I was awoken and subjected to (let’s say) discipline. I made a statement in 2015 though admittedly with a female officer also present I with-held some information (because I was embarrassed) but I made it absolutely clear that the offender had two personalities or personality disorder. At the time, during questioning, when asked did I have a sore backside I responded at that moment I could not remember (why I could not remember was strange to me) but then days later it came back to me and I was sore for many days. I am thinking of making a subject access request for a copy of my statement because whilst I accept the age of consent had changed several years later, I did not give permission to be subjected to what I was given. It makes me angry how a person is found innocent but other witnesses were not allowed to demonstrate what they experienced.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s