Lord Beaumont

December 1970: Lord Beaumont ignores Grey’s Spartacus warning & urges De La Noy to use Stamford’s money

John D Stamford, self-styled Leader of the 1960s British Homophile community and beyond is not best pleased with Lord Beaumont’s reply requiring him to fill out an application form and doesn’t reply for over a month, although he remains Lord B’s ‘obedient servant’ if somewhat disgruntled when he does reply:

“I am returning your application form as the details required were given in my previous letter, and a person in my position should not be asked to fill in an application which one fills in for a post as a junior clerk. I did say in my original letter that no form of salary would be required by me, should this offer still stand, and should you still wish to interview me.”

Screen Shot 2015-09-30 at 15.54.11

Church Times, Friday 27 November 1970, p2

Church Times Friday 18 December 1970, p12

Church Times Friday 18 December 1970, p12

Church Times, 24 December 1970

Church Times, 24 December 1970

Church Times 8 January 1971

Church Times 8 January 1971

The Albany Trust has by this point employed Michael De La Noy as Director and Lord Beaumont replies to inform Stamford of this, although he hopes that Michael and the Trust “will be able to take advantage of your kind offer” presumably in monetary terms.

However by the time Lord Beaumont (Tim to Michael seeing as Michael was formerly his assistant editing Prism from 1965, a radical church publication and they are well known to one another) writes an informal memo to De La Noy on 7th December  stating,

“Antony says that this man is bad news, but if you look at his original application he appears to be swimming in money and therefore I suggest it may be well worth your while getting in contact with him fairly soon,”

Michael has already seized the initiative and

(1) been for a ‘delightful dinner’ with Stamford and his Spartacus colleagues the Tuesday before and the very  next day writes a letter to Stamford thanking him and applying for membership of the new Mayfair Film Cinema Club which Stamford and others will be opening on 17th December. De La Noy also invites Stamford to an Albany Trust fundraiser at the crypt of St Martins in the Fields to be held on 22 January, telling Stamford

“I very much appreciate your concern about the Albany Trust and your obvious desire to help me. I do hope we shall find many ways of working closely together.”

(2) Met up with Roger Baker on Friday 4 December, a Spartacus journalist, in Shepherd’s Bush for a ‘programme that went quite well’ and arranged to be interviewed by him on the work of the Albany Trust for Spartacus

photo 5-13

photo 4-18

photo-27

photo 3-26 photo 2-43

18 Lords on 18th May 1978: The Protection of Children Bill, NCCL and PIE

Monday 8th March 1978

The Open University in the Press Office had taken advice from a barrister over their decision to sack Tom O’Carroll. The NCCL Gay Rights Committee meets and discuss what help and support they can offer.

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 14.29.01

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 14.27.04

 

“Complete support of GRC was unanimously offered through the Chair. Tom O’Carrol pointed out that already a great amount of representation had been made by many organisations. He thanked the GRC, and asked that he could keep the offer in mind, but allowed the position to be resolved by the other organisations if possible, still being able to return to the GRC for help if it became necessary.” Nikki Henriques was the chair for that meeting.

A month earlier news had reached the House of Commons that Tom O’Carroll had been sacked, mentioned in the second reading of the Child Protection Bill on 10th February:

Screen Shot 2015-03-21 at 17.27.53

House of Commons, second reading of the Child Protection Bill 10th February 1978

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 14.31.29

 

“The Bill was available for perusal and also discussion. After much deliberation, it was decided that the matter was important enough to call another meeting, especially to deal with this Bill. A letter from David Offenbach, who as a lawyer saw many faults in the Bill was read out. John Saunders mentioned that he had information of persons recently having action taken against them under the existing laws in connection with Child Pornography cases. These cases seemed to be being dealt with quite adequately. It did seem the Bill was a panic measure. Although the committee agreed that children needed protection, this Bill would in fact put children at greater risk, also innocent people. It would bring the ruthless child exploiter to the fore.

To prevent a situation arising that would give ‘The Powers that be’ an open ended Bill, allowing limitless power, invasion of privacy, and maybe even causing Educational material to be at risk, also putting the children at GREATER risk, it was decided that the GRC should discuss the Bill at length, and make representation to NCCL to request that the Bill be reconsidered, and at least dealt with in a proper [??], not in panic, and not as a political manoeuvre to give certain Members of Parliament the chance to use the Bill for other reasons than that which it was reputed to be designed for.”

NCCL Gay Rights Committee schedule a special meeting for the Wednesday 15th March to peruse and discuss the Child Protection Bill at more length with Bill Forrester coordinating.

April 1978: ‘That Booklet’ is published & Antony Grey re-joins NCCL

‘That Booklet’ referred to below in Magpie April 1978, was Paedophilia: Some Questions & Answers [see further blog post: Who was ‘John’ the Albany Trust representative on the PIE co-drafting committee?]. Despite apparently not having collected enough money from the membership [only 31 members donated £156 in total – £847.16 in today’s money]  to go to print, PIE’s Executive Committee decided to fund the balance themselves. Perhaps going cap in hand to the Albany Society Ltd (the Trust’s grant-giving arm) was out of the question, although its unclear as to whether Antony Grey also resigned from the Society when he resigned from the Trust in mid-1977, instead taking up an Executive Committee position at the NCCL at Nettie Pollard’s invitation on 3rd April 1978 [see further blog post: Antony Grey meets and corresponds with Parker Rossman]. Those who had donated to the fundraising were able to receive ‘complimentary’ copies, others would have to pay 35 pence [£1.90]

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-21 at 18.46.45

Magpie No 10, April 1978

Screen Shot 2015-03-21 at 18.47.47

Magpie No 10, April 1978

 

 

 

 

Magpie No 11, May 1978

Magpie No 11, May 1978

“All members of the House of Commons and some Lords have been sent a copy of PIE’s new booklet Paedophilia – Some Questions and Answers. This distribution was timed to coincide with a Press Release announcing the publication of the booklet. 180 newspapers and periodicals in the UK received this Press Release.”

It would be interesting to know if the ‘some Lords’ selected by PIE to receive a complimentary copy of ‘That Booklet’ overlapped much, if at all, with the list of ’18 Members of the Upper House’ Harriet Harman is all set to follow up with to lobby for the NCCL proposed amendments to the Bill [see below]. Why did Harriet Harman or the NCCL GCR think the 18 would be amenable to NCCL’s proposed amendments? How had they been identified by the NCCL? The ‘regrettable’ situation was that, while the Chairman of PIE Tom O’Carroll and PIE member Nettie Pollard were steering hard on the NCCL Gay Rights Committee, PIE’s proposed amendments to the Protection of Children Bill didn’t need to be lobbied for under PIE’s name. By pushing on with publishing ‘that booklet’ (much unchanged from the final draft presented to the Albany Trust in March 1977 although NCCL and Albany Trust addresses had been removed) at the right time, PIE was able to support the NCCL’s lobbying more effectively and, on the surface, separately. Antony Grey’s return to the NCCL Executive Committee at Nettie Pollard’s invitation the day after his attendance at the NCCL AGM was particularly helpful.

May 1978: NCCL GCR Child Protection Bill lobbying in the House of Lords

Wednesday 10 May, 7.30 pm Nettie Pollard, Alan Deighton, Robert Palmer, Tom O’Carroll, Richard Fowler, Roland Jeffery gather at the NCCL offices at 186 Kings Cross Road

By May the Child Protection Bill is being debated in the House of Lords.

Antony Grey wasn’t able to attend (being the first meeting after re-joining NCCL Executive Committee having attended the NCCL AGM and seeing Tom O’Carroll there) although he is tasked with an action in his absence – to follow up whether NUPE’s Assistant had replied to Patricia Hewitt’s approach re Tom O’Carroll’s appearances at Swansea’s Love & Attraction Conference

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 06.58.16

 

Agenda Item #4: Child Protection Bill House of Lords’ Proposed Amendments

“Bill now due for Committee of the Whole House in the Lords on Thursday 18th May. Hattie Harman’s briefing had gone to 18 Members of the Upper House, and she would be in touch with interested Lords before 18th. Nettie and Roland had met Hattie, and it was decided to arrange for two additional amendments,

one to redefine concept of ‘production’ as used in the Bill and

the other to exclude sex education material from its ambit

especially since the amendment redefining Indecency as set out in the Bill was likely to fail.

Hattie was arranging for members of the EC Sub-Committee set up to put amendment proposals to be at House on 18th if possible, and Nettie and Roland would also be available if required.”

Who served on the NCCL Executive Committee Sub-Committee that were attending the House of Lords prior to the debate as to be arranged via Harriet Harman?

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 07.11.24

18 Lords approached for 18th May Debate on Child Protection Bill

The House of Lords debate started at 6pm that Thursday evening of 18th May and ran until shortly after 7.45pm

http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1978/may/18/protection-of-children-bill

The Lords and Ladies debating were: Baroness Faithfull, Baroness Wootton, Lord Wigoder, Earl Longford, Lord Scarman, Lord Redesdale, Baroness Elliot, Lord Harris, Lord Somers, Lord Monson, Lord Northfield, Lord Hale, Viscount Hanworth, Lord De Clifford, Lord Robertson, The Earl of Halsbury and former Albany Trust Chairman and Liberal Peer Lord Beaumont of Whitley.

Baroness Faithfull does not have much faith in Lord Beaumont of Whitley’s proposed Amendment to Lord Harris, Minister for Home Office’s Amendment. Neither does Lord Somers have much time for Lord Widoger’s suggestions.

Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY

“I am most grateful for the way in which the Committee has received and discussed this Amendment, and I freely admit that there are major flaws in it. The point about material from abroad, I entirely accept; the point about the effects on the child of the matter having to be tested in court, I grant to be an overwhelming reason against the Amendment as it is drafted. I entirely accept the point made by the noble Lord who spoke from the Benches opposite about the effect on the child, not only of the making of the film but also of the showing and the publishing of it, and it is an absolutely worthy part of the Bill that it is trying to stop that harm.

Nevertheless, I still have my doubts in two areas. One of them is in what I might call “the David Hamilton syndrome”, which the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, raised. I am still not at all clear what the situation would be there, for, as I say, there is no doubt that in the products of a number of respectable artists and respectable photographers there is a sensuality which a great many people, particularly those who repress their own sexuality, find intensely disturbing—not disgusting or depraved but disturbing. I do not know whether the products of such people, such professional photographers, are covered by  this Bill. Nor, I suspect, does anyone else. I think this is a very bad situation. It could he decided only by a jury. We could only make an intelligent guess as to what a jury would decide. I do not know in these circumstances what juries would decide. But I think we ought to be fairly clear in our own minds as to what we are actually saying and doing and whether some of these cases come within the ambit or not. This is quite apart from the peculiar anomaly that, for instance, some of Graham Ovenden’s paintings could not possibly be subject to prosecution under this Bill because they are paintings; but if someone photographed them, they could be. That seems a weird situation to find ourselves in, and one which is difficult to deal with.

Artist Graham Ovenden jailed for two years for sexual abuse of children [The Guardian 9 October 2013]

Child abuse artist Graham Ovenden jailed for two years after ‘unduly lenient’ sentence is reviewed [The Independent, 9 October 2013]

Perhaps with his Defence of Literature & Arts sponsor hat on Lord Beaumont continues: (1) David Hamilton; (2) Lewis Carroll; (3) Henry Tukes

“The second aspect with which the Amendment tries to deal is the area of artists—painting, depicting or photographing—and there is no real borderline here, as we all now know in the realms of art, but it is quite obvious in this case. Pubescent or pre-pubescent children are, in a way which they think, right for their art without doing the children much harm, it would seem to me. There are today in this country in a great many shops which sell postcard—I refer to the respectable ones and the highly respectable ones as well as the others—photographs by David Hamilton. As noble Lords no doubt know, David Hamiltion is a very well-known photographer of young girls, probably many of whom fall into the category of 14 to 16 about whom we are particularly talking. No obscenity of any kind comes into it, but that there is a real sensuality, a real eroticism, nobody can possibly doubt; nor, frankly, can their sales be ascribed to anything else.

There are other artists who I will not name but who are dealing with the same situation, and I will take two examples from the past because the Victorian age, and the most respectable parts of that age, were absolutely rampant with this awareness of the sexuality and eroticism of children. If one looks at photographs by Lewis Carroll, the Reverend Charles Dodgson, of small girls, whom he preferred photographing naked, there can be absolutely no doubt whatever that, whether or not he realised it, they were strongly erotic actions. There is no evidence, so far as I know, that it ever did any of the children any harm, although one or two mammas got alarmed and suggested that the children were getting a little old for that, but that was all right because, when they got too old for that, Lewis Carroll thought they had got too old for that, too. Then Henry Tuke, a noted RA, who painted and exhibited in the Royal Academy every year; he painted naked boys bathing in practically every one of his pictures, and again they contain a strong eroticism.”

Agenda Item #7: Patricia Hewitt’s approach to NUPE over Tom O’Carroll’s Liverpool visit and Swansea Conference

Antony Grey and Roland Jeffery had together met with Patricia Hewitt (General Secretary of NCCL for the past 3.5 years) to ask her to contact the NUPE regarding action against venues where Tom O’Carroll had been invited to speak at (Oxford and Liverpool Student Unions) and at the September 1977 Swansea Love & Attraction Conference. Hewitt had obliged, writing to the NUPE Assistant General Secretary but no reply had been received.

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 08.00.12

Screen Shot 2015-03-21 at 19.21.50

Magpie No 10 March 1978

 

Magpie No 11, April 1978

Magpie No 11, April 1978

 

 

 

 

 

The April AGM of NCCL had passed Bill Forrester and Nettie Pollard’s motion to condemn attacks on PIE’s freedom of expression – but not without a telling amendment suggesting PIE’s influence at NCCL AGMs was finding some resistance:

 “Accordingly, whilst reaffirming the NCCL policy on the age of consent and the right of children; particularly the need to protect those of prepubertal age…”

NCCL 1978 AGM & Ballot Booklet

NCCL 1978 AGM & Ballot Booklet

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roland Jeffery, who approached Patricia Hewitt with Grey on NUPE, had been working with Harold Haywood OBE, Lucilla Butler and PIE treasurer Charles Napier in the group Haywood assembled at Earl’s Court, during the time Napier had been asked to go on holiday when revealed as PIE Treasurer mid-1977. Jeffrey had also been the CHE group convenor at Oxford University according to his ballot biography below standing for election at April 1978 NCCL AGM for the Executive Committee as proposed by Geoffrey Robertson and seconded by Nettie Pollard.

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 07.23.39

Tom O’Carroll had written to Antony Grey 3 weeks prior to the NCCL meeting minuted here (10 May 1978) to thank him “in relation to NUPE etc.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 08.15.31

 

30th July 1979: Letter from paedophile group links Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt to it AFTER they said it had been marginalised [Martin Robinson, Daily Mail, 7 March 2014]

PIE Controversy: Harriet Harman has got this one wrong [The Independent, Joan Smith, 1 March 2014]

Pensioner backed Paedophile Information Exchange and may hold key to links with left wing groups [Mirror, Keir Mudie, Nick Dorman, 8 March 2014]

Labour Trio can’t stay silent on this pedophile claim [The Guardian, Barbara Ellen, 23 February 2014]

 

Tuesday 13th June 1978 – July 1978: PIE Raids with warrants issued under the Obscene Publications Act

Keith Hose, Nettie Pollard, Antony Grey, Roland Jeffery all attend

“PIE and Police Harassment

The committee was informed of a number of raids which have taken place in the last few days with warrants issued under the Obscene Publications Act. It was thought that this was a cover for access to gain information on PIE and its membership files.”

An ironic echo of Judge Hamilton-King’s words in R v Thorne (1977) considering Nettie Pollard’s efforts to object at the time? [See further blog post: April 1977 Penthouse funding to NCCL for PIE’s Nettie Pollard falters]

Conference Report

“Patricia was most unwilling to accept Tom O’Carroll’s report for inclusion in the conference report because it might further the less informed public’s identification of gays with child molesters (though we fully accept that pedophiles are not necessarily child molesters either). It was decided to refer this matter to the full Executive who would be circulated in advance. The consensus of the committee was a demand for its inclusion with a suitable introduction.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-16 at 13.57.43

NCCL GCR 13 June 1978

 

 

Unfortunately Magpie Issue no 11 of April 1978 had already gone to print so had announced that he article would be included. Tom O’Carroll had given a speech on Chemical Castration at a conference NCCL had convened in May 1977 on Gay Rights. Will be interesting to see if Patricia Hewitt’s view was overruled by the Executive Committee after considering the matter of a ‘suitable introduction’ and whether the article was eventually published in the NCCL’s 1977/78 AGM Conference Report or the Booklet produced for the Gay Rights Conference?

Screen Shot 2015-03-21 at 19.20.36

U Magpie No 11, April 1978

 

April 1977: Penthouse funding to NCCL for PIE’s Nettie Pollard falters

*again with thanks to A.N.Other

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 23.39.24

Penthouse owner Bob Guccione

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 23.42.45

A 1977 new model telephone

 

 

In April 1977, PIE member and NCCL Gay Rights worker Nettie Pollard almost lost her job. While she was busy writing to the Lord Chancellor’s office to request that Judge Alan King-Hamilton be disciplined for his comments on the Paedophile Information Exchange (looking like one big blackmail set-up)* during the case of R v Andre Thorne, the Penthouse grant from Bob Guccione which funded her role at NCCL was due for renewal in June or October that year. As ever, Lord Beaumont was Nettie’s first port of call in the House of Lords (despite no longer being Albany Trust chairman) when her plea for admonishment fell on deaf ears at the LC’s office.

Geoffrey Robertson, then a barrister of 4 years call, considered it a ‘moot point’ as to whether it would be renewed and was having discussions with Guccione as to conditions being attached to renewal. Robertson stated that the current grant had been given to support gay rights work but that Patricia [Hewitt’s] subsequent conversations with Penthouse meant that may have been altered.

The fact that Penthouse was acceptable funding for NCCL Gay Rights Committee staff and came with conditions shouldn’t perhaps be surprising in the context of Peter Righton’s fellow ACCESS trustee Dr Robert Chartham/Ronald Seth also being Penthouse Forum’s agony uncle, providing free 1 hour sessions on Wednesdays at a ‘clinic’, or Dr Charlotte Wolff or Michael De La Noy publishing articles there.

[*N.B. Judge Alan King-Hamilton presided at Playland Trial No. 2, Charles Hornby in July – September 1975 – David Archer’s dossier of ‘millionaires, influential and titled people’ escaping prosecution for abuse of boys at the Piccadilly amusement arcade]

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 23.30.58

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 23.33.06

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-02 at 23.35.25

November 1972: Ian Dunn, PIE founder joins Albany Society Ltd Council of Management

One year prior to the formation of the Paedophile Information Exchange [Sept/Oct 1974] by Ian Dunn and Michael Hanson of the Scottish Minorities Group (SMG), Dunn is invited to be admitted as an Ordinary member at the Society’s third AGM.

Other familiar names are Albany Trustees –  Rev. Michael Butler (Deputy Director Samaritans), Dr John Robinson (Dean of Trinity College, Cam), Mr Rodney Bennett-England (future Director of the National Council for the Training of Journalists), Mr Michael Schofield and Dr Charlotte Wolff and the Trust’s Honorary Solicitor Ambrose Appelbe (who had guided Mandy Rice-Davis through the Profumo scandal, an odd coincidence considering it was Profumo as Warden who had secured Righton his premises for ACCESS at Toynbee Hall during his brief Chairmanship).

The Albany Society Ltd had first been established in 1968 as a fundraising arm and grant-making fund to keep finances separate from the Trust itself. This separation and use of an alternative legal entity also changed the nature of the duties the office holders have. Trustees have fiduciary duties to keep within Trust Deed and could not limit their liability whereas directors owe duties to shareholders and can limit liability. This decision of Antony Grey’s to revive the Albany Society Ltd as a vehicle of control over the Albany Trust would prove significant over the course of the next few years.

Following the difficulties over Michael De La Noy’s menacing Lord Beaumont and others for control of the counselling casework during 1971, Grey with Dr John Robinson seconding, swells the ranks of the Society’s ‘Council of Management’ with 21 or 22 new ‘Ordinary Members’.

Dr Charlotte Wolff proposed Dr David Kerr MP to be elected as Chairman of the Council of Management. Kerr had been Labour MP for Wandsworth Central 1964 – 1970, one of the surprise wins (from Conservative Deputy Chief Whip) for Labour allowing Harold Wilson a narrow majority. Antony Grey becomes Kerr’s Honorary Secretary.

Lord Beaumont resigns as do Martin Ennals, financier Mr Thomas Frankland, journalist Mr Hitti Malik, Master Baker Mr Kenneth Stoneley and (later to be QC) Keith Wedmore

Grey explained that the Albany Trustees felt it was appropriate to ‘activate Albany Society Ltd as the most effective vehicle for future work, and to appeal for all the Deeds of Covenant to be made with Albany Society Ltd.’ The immediate priority for the Society was to assist other counselling and befriending organisations in the National Federation of Homophile Organisations (NFHO) with education and training on counselling.

photo 1-14 photo 2-16 photo 3-10 photo 4-7

July 1971:Righton at the House of Lords – The Albany Trust’s Emergency Meeting of 12 Friends

Spychiatric Struggles: Righton’s attempt to gain control of Albany Trust’s counselling files

1. May 1971: In which Righton & Cordell establish ACCESS with Dr Robert Chartham (aka Ronald Seth – of potential interest to MI5) named on a draft trust deed and plan to takeover Albany Trust’s counselling casework files

2. July 1971: In which Righton gets called to the House of Lords by Lord Beaumont, ex Liberal party Chairman & Treasurer for an emergency meeting of the 12 friends of the Albany Trust [See below]

3. September & October 1971: In which Righton and Dr Chartham realise they will have to get the Trust’s counselling casework files via less confrontational means and Righton takes advice from Jack Profumo

 

Lord Beaumont calls Emergency Meeting at House of Lords – to take place on Monday 19th July

Eight months of gradual decline into chaos for the Trust started with the replacement of Antony Grey with Michael de la Noy as Director, Cordell’s sacking and de la Noy’s persistent wrangling to turn counseling casework into publishing opportunities, all forcing Lord Beaumont of Whitley as Chairman of the Trust since 1969, to call an emergency meeting.

 

Backed by his four Albany Trustees (Dr John Robinson, Keith Wedmore, Michael Schofield, Martin Ennals) on 19th July 1971 the Lords Liberal spokesman for education and the arts proposed to host twelve people deemed as ‘Friends’ of the Albany Trust, including Righton and Grey (as his real name, Edgar Wright) at the House of Lords to discuss the future of the Trust.

photo 1-5

Marked Highly Confidential: Papers for meeting on Monday 19th July

photo 2-6

Beaumont’s papers for 19th July meeting

 

photo-5

12 Friends of Albany Trust invited to House of Lords Emergency meeting

 

While not having quite the prestige of the Palace of Westminster to gather people within, two in particular of Beaumont’s Albany Trustees were not without status and power. Robinson was then the current Dean of Trinity College, Cambridge (and former Anglican Bishop of Woolwich, South London) and Martin Ennals was three years into a 12 year period spent as the Secretary General of Amnesty International. Schofield was a wealthy son of a leading Leeds department store-owner who’d turned away from trade to become a sexual sociologist, and Keith Wedmore, was a reforming Quaker barrister.

Lord Beaumont of Whitley (1928 – 2008) was according to one obituary headline ‘a millionaire priest and publisher who became the first Green peer’

 

[The Independent obituary , Liberal Party Treasurer 1962 – 1967, Life Peerage, Chairmanship of Liberal Party , Lords Liberal spokesman for education and arts 1968 – 1986)

 

“For Beaumont, ordination and publishing both eventually lost their charms, and politics took their place. The Liberal Party suited to perfection his emotional and intellectual inclinations, and provided a relatively small goldfish bowl in which to exercise his talents and rise to the top. By 1962 he was treasurer of the party, and five years later he received his reward for substantial contributions to party funds by way of a life peerage. It was the one honour he had always wanted, and coincided with his chairmanship of the Liberal Party. In the Lords he became Liberal spokesman for education and arts, 1968-86, later, for the Lib Dems, on conservation and the countryside. When he announced his defection to the Greens in 1999 he blamed the Lib Dem leader Charles Kennedy’s lack of action on the environment for his decision.”

 

Married to the cousin of Princess Margaret’s husband (Anthony Armstrong-Jones), a Mary Rose Wauchope in 1955, Tim Beaumont had lived in Kowloon Hong Kong as an Anglican priest during the early years of wedded life, until receiving his inheritance he returned to the UK in 1959. During the 1960s, he bought up a number of Christian publications including Lady Rhondda’s Time and Tide, appointing himself Editor of Prism and Michael de la Noy his assistant editor.

 

“In 1962 he joined Prism Publications and he became assistant editor of Prism, the radical church voice of the time. In 1963 the Reverend Tim Beaumont, later Lord Beaumont of Whitley, gave him a job as part of a team at Lambeth Palace producing a group of magazines including Time & Tide. Michael De-la-Noy was given responsibility for Outlook, a new-style insert for parish magazines.”[i]

 

But by summer 1970, after three years accompanying the Archbishop Ramsey as Press Officer, De La Noy left under a cloud following the publication of two articles; one on a transvestite Army Colonel living at Earl’s Court and the other, a frank account of bisexual life, both deemed inappropriate. Ramsey was a celibate homosexual and De La Noy, not only accused Ramsey’s staff at Lambeth Palace of pushing him out, but also took to making threats in the press about a forthcoming book he was writing.

 

De-la-Noy’s Complaint

 

“The Archbishop of Canterbury’s summarily dismissed press officer, Michael De-La-Noy has found a new job and is planning a book that promises to chill his old master far more than his sexy articles for naughty magazines. First the job. On the morning the guillotine fell, he was offered work on industrial public relations in London, A fortnight later, he has taken it up.

 

The book, De-La-Noy says will be the full story of his sacking. “It is really about the workings of the Church establishment, which overlaps of course, with the State establishment. It has more power and is more sinister than people realise.” But the book, he insists, will not be vindictive.

 

He is still receiving letters about his dismissal and is still baffled at the ham-headed way it was done. “They took a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They didn’t have to sack me. I was intending to go back to journalism next spring anyhow. All they had to do was say please find another job and I would have done so.” It wouldn’t have made half as good a book though.”

 

[The Guardian, 24 July 1970]

 

 

By the time De La Noy had insinuated his way into the Directorship of the Albany Trust with a visit to the offices to declare his intention to write a book on sexuality for Church of England ordinands, he and Beaumont had known one another for 8 years. His stint at Albany Trust and then the Sexual Law Reform Society did not prevent his publication of A Day in the Life of God (1971), referring to a letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Ramsey, asking for De La Noy’s forgiveness for sacking him.

 

For Beaumont, Albany Trust’s financial woes were starting to look insignificant next to his own.

 

 

“The 1970s were a time of serious decline in his financial position. Whether this was due to the failure of all but one of his publishing ventures and his excessive generosity was never clear. Whatever the explanation, houses and paintings had to be sold and by 1976 he was augmenting his by now modest income by writing the food column in the Illustrated London News.” [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1584656/The-Rev-Lord-Beaumont-of-Whitley.html ]

 

Doreen tells all to Peter Righton and Dr Charlotte Wolff: 5th July 1971

In nervous anticipation of the forthcoming House of Lords emergency meeting, and wishing to put her two ACCESS champions in the picture about Antony Grey and Michael De La Noy’s machinations,  Doreen writes to Dr Charlotte Wolff and Peter Righton, enclosing an extra copy for Righton to pass on to Canon Eric James  ( “I have done a copy to Charlotte which, as I said, I will post on to her and will enclose an additional copy in case you think it might be worth Eric having a copy”) [iii]

[p1] Doreen’s faith and belief in Peter Righton is tremendous:

– “Of all those concerned with the meeting – and that includes both present and past Directors, present and past Trustees and any others concerned, YOU are the only one who can possibly know anything of the content, depth and variety of the work which was being done. How glad I am that you spent those few days at No. 32 [Shaftesbury Avenue, Albany Trust offices] over the Christmas because although this was not altogether representative of the total picture, you are the only person who has taken the trouble to do this and thus the only person who can claim in any way to know anything of the work.

The reason why I include both past and present Directors in the ‘not knowing’ category is because, as you know, Antony was both mentally and physically (most of the time) in abstention over the past 2 years and certainly since the end of 1967 and beginning of 1968 he adopted the attitude that he just didn’t want to know. The reasons for this you also know – his obsession with his own private affairs which, as you know, intruded wickedly into the time of the A.T, this situation only being cracked by Avril when she arrived at the beginning of 1970. Thus the previous Director’s comments and influence should be invalidated not only because of his own attitude and emotional inability to adjust to the post-1967 situation but also because of the situation with those in whom he interested himself who had (in both cases to my knowledge) come to the Trust for help.

So far as the present Director is concerned, he has just not the professional understanding to know with what he is dealing – it is just as simple as that. This is evinced by his own attitude that he can give advice just as well as I can and in much less time much more efficiently’ and his use of totally unsuitable people to interview those coming for help, including himself, who are totally incapable of diagnostic and professional referral work. It is not their fault in that they succumbed to what a consultant psychiatrist called the Director’s ‘psychopathic cunning and charm’ or, what is more likely, as journalists and writers, they saw the opportunity, as did the Director, to avail themselves of ‘human interest’ material which I have no doubt they will proceed to use in the future in a journalistic manner. As journalists, one would expect this to happen which makes what has happened and the exposure of those in trouble to such people an even more serious issue.

Why I include the Trustees in this category is because this perviously in the office were kept at arms length by the previous Director and only in fact, told what he himself wanted them to know of what was going on. He always took the view that he was the Director of the Trust (although this title only recently) and that he was not going to be ‘told’ what to do either by the Trustees or by the supporters – leading on the invidious position which has grown up between the Trust and whose who, mostly out of their own hard-earned incomes, provided the funds to keep the Trust in being including paying salaries of the staff including the Director.”

 

“You must also know that Antony’s position was rather different from Michael’s in that he was engaged by the Trust as a Consultant and paid a fee accordingly. When he was secretary of both A.T. and H.L.R.S. he was still technically employed as a Consultant and this was a situation which misled many and which put him into the strong position of dictating in the way he did.”

 

[p.3] “It is important for you to know this background because I have never disclosed the technicalities of it before although I have been aware of the situation but determinedly worked to the Ambrose formula and the constitution.”

– “On the liabilities  side I know there there is an annual contract with J.Lyons & Co as the landlords, and from memory the cost of that accommodation is about £1,000 per year”

[p.5] “With the advent of the present Chairman and then the present Director (not so much when Dr Robinson joined the Trust) this fell away in a twofold manner = those who , at personal risk, undertook counselling of a religious kind, pulled away from the Trust because they felt themselves to be in serious danger, and those who would have come to the trust for help did not do so because of its public alignment with a particular denomination”

On the animosity between herself and Antony Grey, Doreen let Peter Righton know that Grey’s previous administrative assistant Joy Blanchard ‘exercised tight control’ over him (which is interesting in the context of Grey’s petitioning the Trustees in other meeting Minutes for Joy’s pension to kept up to date with his own) due to Grey having got involved with three clients of the Albany Trust who were under 21, one incident being known to Joy and two known to Doreen. Doreen calls under 21s Grey’s ‘achilles heel’ but that’s not to say Grey was at all interested in under 16s although the law would still have made him vulnerable to blackmail post 1967 due to inequality of age of consent – her point also being regarding the unprofessionalism of becoming involved with a client of the Trust who was presumably vulnerable and in need of help and the way in which the Trustees were involved and how dealing with Grey’s personal life was eating into valuable Trust time. She was also careful to point out that Antony Grey was well aware of the connotations for the Albany Trust if it were seen to be advertising in or writing for Spartacus and did not wish for the Trust to be associated with them – something which Michael De La Noy ignores.

However, what Doreen was so clearly unaware of was that Peter Righton would have had some idea of why Antony Grey was machinating and withdrawn from July 1969 – since he had become Chairman of the Albany Trust’s Social Projects Study Group with Antony Grey as Secretary [ see 1968-1970: Albany Trust, Peter Righton, Antony Grey and Ian Greer ] and together they had committed to an intense 12 month period of fortnightly meetings in time for the 1970 Social Work Conference at York, chaired by Raymond Clark.

[p.6] “You must know – in case you are not aware of this already – that because of my unwillingness to machinate for Antony in his private affairs, he turned extremely vicious during the latter part of 1969 and early 1970. It was for this reason that he brought Avril into the picture, thinking that he would set us against each other. However, she quickly saw through the situation and cracked it at once – after 3 weeks to be precise, whereas I had had to put up with it for 3 years!

If it is asked why I put up with it all that time, it was because I knew, beyond any shadow of doubt, that once Joy Blanchard became so ill leaving Antony and I on our own, it boiled down to a question of my word against his – and I knew which way the Trustees would take it.”

……

“Joy’s illness was rather a turning point in the scheme of things because she had previously exercised tight control on Antony (because of her intimate knowledge of a previous incident similar to those in which I was involved related to his private life in which the trustees were also involved.) However, with her not there and with my apparent ignorance of the back history, Antony took advantage of the situation.

At that time, he did his utmost to force me into the position of his Assistant.”

……

“I knew that he had had a great shock when he began to realise the swing back of police activity immediately the Act went through which disclosed the real inadequacies of the law reform which had taken so much out of him. It was as if all the effort was for nought. The only real thing the Act did, as you know, was to enable two consenting adults over 21 to have a relationship. All the peripheral aspects and especially the under 21s – which is his own achilles heel – were worse than ever before. As a legal man, he found this very hard to take and I could understand and sympathise.

To add to his emotional disturbance, we had, as you know got involved in the transvestite/transexual field and this to him was the ‘last straw’. It dawned on me to the full when I heard him explaining to someone that the whole idea of transsexualism is abhorrent to one who is homosexual, because it is, in fact, the castration of the source of erotic stimulation. i know he felt this deeply and went through agonies over the 1st Gender Identity Symposium we ran and it was basically for this reason that, in spite of his promise and our obligation to all those wonderful specialists who attended from all over the world, he failed to publish the Proceedings. He just could not face up to the job of editing such a subject.

This was especially pertinent because it coincided with a time when he was in a bad emotional state personally and it was from then on, July 1969, that he was really withdrawn. Because I realised all this, I withheld details of casework from him, keeping him informed of trends and developments with a brief report every so often. For a long while I deliberately sought his help with legal difficulties until I realised that this, too, was a source of anguish to him. Thus we were not able to take the positive action which we should have done at a time when police activity and court interpretation of the Act was so serious.”

On Michael De La Noy, Doreen was able to bring Righton up to date with how he’d first arrived in the office and also how he’d published an article with Spartacus [ Spotlight on Abuse: The Spartacus paedophile network was exposed by the Sunday People in February 1983 ] in the hope of ‘big money’ with John D Stamford [Spotlight on Abuse: UK Connections with international pedophile network Spartacus ]

[p.7] ” Avril summed up the position with in the first week of his arrival. In fact he had so beforehand on the occasion when he came to the Trust for help with a book which he was proposing to write on the lack of suitable training in Ordinands for our particular work. [p.8] This was just prior to his interview by the Selection Committee though only I knew of his application. Avril and the girls thought he was a ‘case’ because he behaved in such a disturbed way when he first arrived. Thus they bent over backwards to put him at his ease only to receive incredible rudeness from him.

My reaction was the same – that he was a highly disturbed young man – during the course of our talk which I kept strictly to the subject in hand. I put him in touch with one or two of our religious folk who immediately reacted and rang me to say we should have nothing to do with such a dangerous individual. I pointed out that his request had concerned the church and, as I felt inadequate in discussing the training of ordinands, I had referred him to those who knew all about it and trusted them to ‘deal with him appropriately.” However, the next we knew was that he had been appointed Director! And this inspite of the fact that I had sent a message to Lord Beaumont via his personal secretary that he seemed to be a person in need of help and I had put him in touch with some of our church folk for this purpose!”

……..

“During December when I had tried to convey to him the breadth and importance of our future and the many things which are needing to be done by an active Director that I disclosed to him the 9-months work I had done on religious ceremonies and the file which I had built up of comments made by those within the various churches. All though this files were undertakings by me in response to suggestions from the contributors that the next stage was a highly confidential ecumenical conference without any publicity of any kind so that those who were concerned with this question could evolve some sort of recommendation which could be made through the churches and come from within. You know how this got treated – a wide press circulation and a sermon in Norfolk with blazoned headlines. When I protest and said this had broken confidence I was told by the Chairman and other trustees that this was not so, however, while they had all read the sermon, not one of them had taken the trouble to read the file.

This was only one item of many where damage was done by public statements – the article in Sparticus [sic] referred to on Saturday as being derogatory to the Trust was, in fact, one engineered by Michael and given by him and consisted of quotes from his comments. In this, of course, we had the business of adverse publicity to St. Katherine’s where we had promised Father Hoey that this would never happen. “

….

In fact, he gave the article because he thought he was going to get money (in a big way) from Stamford. It was a fait accompli before we knew anything about it – inspite of the fact that, give Antony his due, he had resisted (Antony I mean) having any reference to A.T. in Sparticus because of its circulation, and the nature of the publication.”

Monday 19th July: Committee Room 3 at the House of Lords

“Held at the House of Lords on Monday 19th July at the invitation of the Chairman of the Trustees, Lord Beaumont, to discuss the future of the Trust. While it was not suggested that the Trust should not continue, consideration was given to transferring its casework to another organisation. The meeting was an advisory one only, during which the Chairman (Peter Righton?) outlined the establishment of the ACCESS and following which the Trustees held their own meeting to come to a decision.”[ii]

 

Dr Charlotte Wolff’s notes of her attendance at the meeting, those who spoke and how positive or negative their response to hers and Peter Righton’s suggestions are held at the Wellcome Library [PSY/Wol/4/1].

photo 1-7

Notes of House of Lords meeting, p.1 PSY/Wol/4/1 Wellcome Institute / Dr Charlotte Wolff

 

photo 2-7

p. 3 Notes of House of Lords meeting, p.2 PSY/Wol/4/1 Wellcome Institute / Dr Charlotte Wolff

photo 2-8

p.2 Notes of House of Lords meeting

 

 

At the close of the meeting Wolff noted:

“Lord B much thanked M de la Noy for his great application and devotion to his task. De La Noy mentioned he had been fired from his previous job because of his outspokenness about sex. Lord B much sympathised with him.”

 

 

Dr Charlotte Wolff (ACCESS invitee, later Albany Trustee)

 

At 11.30am the following Monday 26th July, a week after attending the emergency Albany Trust meeting at the House of Lords, Dr Charlotte Wolff answered her phone to Michael De La Noy and had a conversation she took the trouble to transcribe.

 

PSY/Wol/4/1

PSY/Wol/4/1

 

 

 

 

MdlN: “Lord Beaumont asked me to phone you and arrange a meeting with Michael Schofield and myself about the referral of the cases – I gather you stand in for Mr Righton’s practice

 

Dr C.W: “Yes but nothing can happen for about 3 months – could you not wait until Peter Righton is back – It would only be theoretical what we could discuss

 

MdlN: I know that it would only be theoretical but it would help me – Michael Schofield would prefer afternoons. Could you meet us this week?”

 

Cr C.W. No I cannot. Perhaps next Monday or Thursday 4pm at the Albany Trust. Ask Mr Schofield and ring me back.

 

MdlN: Yes. Thank you.

 

Phone call finished – I thought this is odd – Doreen must come with me – It is entirely her comain – And I felt insecure that my words might be twisted by de la Noy and even by Schofield – I need a witness apart from anything else

 

Rang Doreen at once

 

She immediately suggested to come with me – I – You took the words right out of my mouth – That is what I want – D They may try to pull a fast one over you – We decided to phone Michael to tell him that I bring Doreen

 

The phone constantly engaged I phone Michael Schofield.

 

He hardly spoke – anything else but a rather discourteous yes or no. His attitude a great surprise to me. I told him I wish to bring D.

 

MS: No you cannot – they don’t get on

 

Dr CW: They have to communicate anyway. D is doing the whole ?

 

MS: Excitedly – No he won’t communicate with her – A Secretary can do this. He is ?? to do that

 

Dr CW: Do you remember my ?talk? with you a few months ago – I told you he is altogether ??. But as long as he is Director, he will have to communicate with D – He has to send files and documents. A secretary could not do this – on her own.

 

MS: Yes she can.

 

Dr CW: Well it is for Righton’s and my wish that D is ?? …and this interview is for her more than for me

 

MS: [WG?] are you difficult

 

Dr CW: Not at all – I shall be delighted to come with D.

 

MS: I call the meeting off

 

Dr CW: Fine, then you wait for Peter Righton

 

MS: (A faint) Yes.

 

End

 

Dr CW: Goodbye

 

And yet a week after Dr Charlotte Wolff’s awkward conversations with De La Noy and Michael Schofield, Lord Beaumont sent a further circular to the Friends suggesting a smooth transfer was in hand, and Righton would have control over the Trust’s counseling casework by Christmas 1971.

 

“The Trustees (and I am glad to tell you that Edgar Wright has accepted an invitation to re-join the Board) have decided to carry on the work of the Albany Trust as defined in the Trust Deed and to run down the case of referral work over the next three months. To this end Michael Schofield and Michael De-La-Noy will be having talks with Michael Butler, Peter Righton and Dr Wolff to see what alternative arrangements can be made.”

 

photo-4

 

[i] http://andrejkoymasky.com/liv/fam/biod1/delano02.html

[ii] PSY/WOL/4/1 Wellcome Archives 21 September ACCESS minutes

[iii] PSY/Wol/4/1 Wellcome Archives Doreen Cordell correspondence file