Tom O’Carroll

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

 

1978: Tom O’Carroll writes to Antony Grey at Defence of Literature & Arts Society re ‘freedom of speech’

In 1978, during the passage of the Protection of Children bill through Parliament, and just as PIE were preparing to publish their Paedophilia: Some Questions & Answers and distribute the booklet to MPs pigeonholes in the House of Commons, Tom O’Carroll, Chairman of Paedophile Information Exchange and member of the NCCL Gay Rights Committee wrote to Antony Grey in his role on the Executive Committee of the Defence of Literature and Arts Society (‘DLAS’).

O’Carroll wanted to thank Grey for his support at the 1978 NCCL Annual General Meeting and “in Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 10.22.43relation to” the National Union for Public Employees. The NCCL AGM had taken place on 1-2 April at City University, a fortnight prior to O’Carroll’s letter.

“Dear Antony, I was pleased to see you the other day, and only regret that I had to dash off without having a chance to talk to you after the meeting. Allow me, however, to thank you very much for your support at the NCCL AGM, and in relation to NUPE etc.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 10.27.19

Motion. 39: Freedom of Discussion proposed by Nettie Pollard and Bill Forrester

At the 1978 AGM which O’Carroll and Grey had attended, PIE member Nettie Pollard had seconded a motion proposed by Bill Forrester to ask NCCL to condemn the protests against PIE’s meeting in September 1977:

“This AGM re-affirms the right of free discussion and freedom to hold meetings for all organisations and individuals doing so within the law.

In particular this AGM condemns the physical and other attacks on those who have discussed or attempted to discuss paedophilia and re-affirms NCCL’s condemnation of harassment and unlawful attacks on such persons.” [Bill Forrester and Nettie Pollard]

Tom O’Carroll was responding to an approach made by DLAS to David Grove, PIE’s Children Rights’ Campaign leader and keeper of the PIE mailing list.

In June/July 1976 edition of Understanding Paedophilia (PIE’s forerunner to Magpie) the ‘Magnificent Six’ had been announced, with the following people undertaking the following roles for PIE

‘It’s the Magnificent Six’, p. 7
New EC:
Keith Hose – re-elected to serve as National Chairperson for the coming year
Warren Middleton – re-elected as National Vice Chairperson/PIE Magazine Editor
Tom O’Carroll – elected as PIE General Secretary/responsible for the formation of local groups/PIE members’ contact service/Publicity [See further: Did NCCL’s trawl of List 99 radicalise PIE’s Tom O’Carroll? Palaver #6 October 1976]
David C Grove – elected as Director of PIE’s forthcoming children’s rights campaign/responsible for distribution of mail
Charles Napier – elected as Treasurer/responsible for recruitment of new members.
Peter Righton – elected as Organiser of prison-hospital visits/general correspondence and PIE befriending.
Want applicants for Legal adviser and Director of Research. [Ian Pace blog]

DLAS wanted an article from PIE on the ways in which their freedom of speech have been muzzled for the DLAS publication “Uncensored” Tom O’Carroll nominates Keith Hose to write this for Grey.

Three years later, in a letter to Tony Smythe, Grey wrote

“ The drubbing which free speech, civil rights and common sense have taken over the PIE case is appalling. I always feared that Tom O’Carroll was hellbent on opening this particular Pandora’s Box, and so it has proved.” [See further: With compliments from Ian Dunn, and while you were out Tony Smythe called March 1981 ]

Seemingly, a fear precipitated by Grey’s own invitation, adopting the role of a self-fulfilling prophet of doom while bearing in mind Grey’s ego couldn’t bear not to archive these writings publicly.

Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 08.51.57

 

The Defence of Literature and the Arts Society (1968 – 1983)

Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 09.45.51

The Defence of Literature and Arts Society attracted sponsors from “the great and good”:

Lords, charity directors, MPs, former MPs, lawyers and even doctors such as Dr David Stafford-Clark and Lords who were also Doctors such as Lord Winstanley (apparently a staunch supporter of everyone else’s freedom of speech bar Mary Whitehouse’s when he commanded Antony Grey to pursue her to the end of the road if not further! [Dec 1976: See further blog post here]

Francis Bennion, Parliamentary Counsel and Civil Liberties Barrister

One member of the Executive Committee who served alongside Antony Grey and Eric Thompson was Francis Bennion, Barrister and Parliamentary counsel, who had drafted the constitutions of Pakistan and Ghana, the Consumer Credit Act, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the hugely successful reference book for lawyers on ‘Statutory Interpretation’. In 1968 he founded the Professional Association of Teachers.

On Francis Bennion‘s website : http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/non-fb/1983/1983-007-nfb-dlas-pamphlet.pdf

In 1979 Bennion wrote a review of G Parker Rossman’s book Sexual Experience between Men and Boys [Freethinker Vol.99 1979] [See further for Antony Grey’s meeting with Parker Rossman on his July 1979 trip to UK from the states and Rossman’s letter to Grey and more on George Parker Rossman’s 1971 arrest in the Long Island New York ring with Dr Morris Fraser ]

In 1983 Antony Grey and his partner Eric Thompson were still serving on the Executive Committee of the DLAS along with Michael Rubinstein (the solicitor who Sir Harold Haywood was dismayed at charging for his advice on suing Mary Whitehouse due to his “special interest in the Trust”).

Lord Beaumont of Whitley (former Albany Trust Chairman 1969-1972?) is also a sponsor.

 Ben Whitaker (former Lab: Hampstead MP 1966-1970)

Ben Whitaker was the Chairman of the DLAS and had been Labour MP for Hampstead 1966-1970 during Wilson’s first term, at the same time Dr David Kerr, a fellow DLAS sponsor, had been Labour MP for Wandsworth Central.

NCCL AGM Ballot Papers 1978: Biographies for candidates standing for NCCL Executive Committee

NCCL AGM Ballot Papers 1978: Biographies for candidates standing for NCCL Executive Committee

Brian Sedgemore MP (Lab: Hackney South)

Sponsors included Brian Sedgemore MP (Lab: Hackney South)

See further for Mark Trotter, the Hackney Labour agent whose abuse of children left some victims with AIDS with a history of abuse in Liverpool:

Ian Mikardo MP (Lab: East end, Bow, Poplar, Bethnal Green 1964-1987)

Ian Mikardo MP (Lab:  Reading 1945–50, Reading South 1950–55, Reading 1955–59, Poplar 1964–74, Bethnal Green and Bow 1974–83 and Bow and Poplar 1983–87)

“… the progress of the Child Protection bill was threatened by MP Ian Mikardo, who blocked it to protest against tactics being used by the Conservative party to block Edward Fletcher‘s bill on employment protection, the Prime Minister, James Callaghan, stepped in to ensure that the Bill received the time required to become law.[1]” [Wikipedia: Child Protection Act 1978]

On 12 May 1978 Auberon Waugh wrote ‘Save the Children’ for The Spectator  when Mikardo was MP for Bethnal Green and Bow:

“After all the recent hysteria about the Child Protection Bill, when Mr Ian Mikardo was practically accused of supporting the vile trade in child pornography, we have at last been given a chance to examine the Bill as it ambles its way through its second reading in the House of Lords. To judge from press reaction, and from statements by various opportunist MPs, one might have supposed that child pornography was a new and hideous development which somehow escaped existing legislation on obscene publication and protection of minors, while threatening to corrupt a whole generation of British schoolchildren for the unscrupulous gain of these merchants in human misery . . .”

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-14 at 09.50.28

1976: Did NCCL’s trawl of List 99 radicalise PIE’s Tom O’Carroll?

 

Screen Shot 2015-03-04 at 10.28.10

In October 1976 Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL) published its 6th edition of its newsletter Palaver. It included an article reprinted from Time Out concerning List 99 – the Department of Employment’s method of blacklisting teachers from continuing to work.

Transparency, accountability and right of appeal were Patricia Hewitt’s reasonable concerns: “If people are given the chance to make representations, they should be represented by an adviser. But the real point is that for practical reasons and pure fairness anybody who’s going on the list should be told.”

The Time Out article reports that during  a recent student teacher occupation, (where is not known), a copy of List 99 had been stolen revealing 1,200 names on a ‘consolidated list’ with quarterly updates with new names added being circulated to teacher training colleges and local education authorities.

The covering letter taken with the List 99 documents warned ‘if the List is seen by unauthorised eyes, it may be transformed from a document of protection into exactly the opposite.’ Or with a more positive spin, a great direct marketing mailing list for recruiting new members to a burgeoning civil liberties campaign for pedophiles?

Screen Shot 2015-03-04 at 09.28.22

Palaver No 6, p.15

 

NCCL obtained a copy of the list and started to approach blacklisted teachers. By the time of publication, they had located seven.

“One former teacher contacted by the NCCL says he was completely unaware that he was on the list. He had been in trouble with school authorities six years ago when he admitted to one of his pupils that he was in love with him and later wrote a long letter to the boy explaining his feelings. He was suspended by his head teacher, a decision which was ratified by the local education department.”

As it happens, in 1970, also six years prior to the Time Out article being published, Tom O’Carroll had been busy writing a long letter to a 13 year old boy, a pupil at Caluden Castle School, Axeholme Road, Coventry where he taught history and ran the school chess club. The train of events leading to O’Carroll’s suspension sound remarkably similar to the teacher above whom the NCCL had contacted to see if he was aware he was on List 99. Did O’Carroll’s promotion into PIE as Chairman all begin with NCCL trawling List 99 for pedophiles to complain on behalf of?

“The boy’s mother came and complained about O’Carroll pestering her son outside the family home and repeatedly trying to get access to the house at night.

After he had been sacked, she turned up at the school one day with a six-page love letter he had written to her son. It was all quite sickening.”

…..

“In the love letter that the mother later brought to school, O’Carroll emphasised the difference between boys and women and stressed that women had to use perfume to disguise the smell they exuded.

Boys weren’t like that so they were better, the letter suggested.”

“[Tom O’Carroll] denied trying to gain access to the boy’s house but said: “I did go there to try to see the parents. I wanted to talk it over with them my feelings for the boy and his feelings for me.

Their reaction was to listen quietly and politely. But as soon as I left they told the headmaster all about it and this led to my suspension.

I couldn’t understand why, in effect they were saying my feelings for this boy were sick.”

From O’Carroll’s perspective he had been prevented from continuing as a teacher by the parents’ failure to understand his love for their son.

The headmaster received a call from the Chairman of the school governors about the parents’ complaint. Despite warnings to back off O’Carroll remained adamant his ‘relationship’ with his 13 year old pupil was unstoppable and none of the headmaster’s business, who immediately asked for O’Carroll’s resignation. When it was refused the Head sent O’Carroll to the Education Department in Coventry saying: “I’m sending O’Carroll to you and he is forbidden to be on these premises.”

An inquiry into O’Carroll’s suspension was held which he attended with a friend, although neither spoke much. The suspension was upheld and a few months later he was sacked. So as with the teacher NCCL contacted above: O’Carroll was suspended by his head teacher, a decision which was ratified by the local education department.

Screen Shot 2015-03-04 at 11.15.31

‘Why a school sacked the nastiest man in Britain’ News of the World 25 June 1978