All posts tagged Tory

Now that the final results of the European Election are in, it should not come as a surprise to hear and read in the mainstream media – and from the likes of Jeremy Corbyn, Vince Cable, Caroline Lucas and their troops of flying monkeys – that on top of everything else we (the Great British public) are incapable of doing – it appears that we cannot even do basic maths now.

Since the results were announced, the left wing attack dogs and the Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable, have not been backward in coming forward, gleefully announcing that the result is a clear indication that there is more support for remaining in the European Union, than there is for Brexit.

They appear to be saying that if all the votes for the Remain parties are added together, they show greater numbers than those who were registered as voting for the groups who have campaigned to leave.

Now I don’t know about any of you, but maths is not my strong point, but I can do basic mathematics, and as every smartphone and personal computer has a calculator application, there really is no excuse nowadays.

As the majority of politicians have had the benefit of a private education, and purveyors of the news via any number of mainstream sources have undoubtably attended university, it is somewhat puzzling to ordinary mortals like me, how they have arrived at that conclusion.

If you take a look at the BBC’s own figures, for example, it shows that a little over 2.9 million more votes were cast for leave parties and individuals, and even when you add all the remain figures together, it shows an even larger percentage than the one they lost by in 2016.

Or am I missing something?

While doing some background work on the second part of a JACK THE RIPPER examination I am currently working on, I have been spending some time trawling through some of the contemporary newspaper reports and periodicals from 1888 which reported on the case.

As is often the case when researching articles for possible inclusion on this site, I find something which takes me off in a completely different direction altogether, which is what has happened here, inasmuch as although the main subject of this article has a link to the Whitechapel murders, albeit a tenuous one – it will, at some point, tie in with my telling of the Ripper story.

‘Jack the Ripper’ was not the first serial killer, although he may well have been the first one to ‘ply his trade’ entirely within the confines of a major metropolis; and he almost certainly was the first to operate when the general population had become literate, and the mass media had began to influence not only what people were reading every day, but also what they were supposed to ‘believe‘.

Now that last bit is important, as throughout history, and even more so over the last one hundred and fifty years, certain events that have become embedded in the psyché of so many people, and believed to be true – have been planted there by the mass media and the entertainment industry.

I am not talking about ‘False Flag’ attacks here, a number of which have been catalysts for starting wars and forcing regime changes throughout the world via invasions, as many of those events have since been shown to be entirely manufactured and State-Sponsored, and there is more than enough evidence available to support that.

What I am referring to is something that has been widely-studied by psychologists and is known as ‘Belief Perseverance’, and is something that anyone can fall prey to, although some people are more prone to it than others.

Belief perseverance, is exactly as it sounds, it’s an unshakeable and continuing belief in something or someone, that has been shown to be false, regardless of any evidence that is presented to show just that.

It’s the reason why so many people year upon year fall for hoaxes, and the reason that so many become victims of liars, fraudsters, con artists and professional grifters, as normal, everyday folk tend to see the best in others and simply do not believe that people can be so callous and would do anything that devious.

The mass media are no different, they know only too well how to sell lies as truth, they do it on a daily basis, and they know exactly how to influence and steer people towards supporting what have turned out to have been some very unpopular political ideas – a good example of this is how the British media have covertly managed to demonise the disabled, the unemployed and the working poor by way of some very biased news coverage and television programming.

Over a few short months, the mass media have purposely and very successfully divided the country down the middle, and very few people have noticed what has actually happened.

Another similar example happened in 1973, when the UK entered the Common Market, as it was known as then, following what could be viewed as an exercise in propaganda, as by 1971 it was blatantly obvious that most British newspapers were totally committed to Britain becoming a member of the EEC, the only exceptions being those under the Express umbrella of publications.

A large proportion of the population were totally unaware of the fact that the results of an opinion poll in 1973, showed that the British people were against entering the EEC by an astounding ratio of three to one – the mass media of course failed to publish anything like those figures.

Even though public feeling was against it, and even suggesting the idea of entering the union was seen as being political suicide, the Government of Edward Heath still pushed ahead and spent £10M of taxpayers money on printing and distributing literature praising the virtues of becoming an EEC member, and produced a ‘White Paper’ which was full of totally unsubstantiated claims to support their claims.

The mass media deliberately left out any mention of the annual costs of membership, or the fact that joining the EEC was the first step along the road towards creating a Federal States of Europe.

Heath and the Tories only managed to get away with what was viewed as a ‘Betrayal of the British People’, because the mass media had also decided that entry was a ‘good thing’ (for them and their owners), and did not publicaly question a single claim made by Heath or the Conservative administration.

Pro-EEC rhetoric appeared on most news and feature pages, and was reinforced by massive numbers of full page advertisements paid for by the Pro-European Movement.

Anybody who has peeled back a few layers of what really went on back then, would have established that if the mass media had done their job properly, investigated like real journalists and fully analysed the real purpose and true cost of the Common Market, Britain would have almost certainly never have joined, and would now be an eminently wealthier and more powerful nation.

Conservative Prime Minister Edward Heath took Britain into the EEC without giving the electorate the opportunity to say whether or not their country should become part of this ‘project‘, and the mass media was the tool the Tory Government utilised to achieve it.

But that was forty-three years ago, and you would think that the British population would have learned something by now wouldn’t you?

But I shall assume that it’s a pretty safe bet, that despite the depth of feeling among the electorate, the numbers at the Grassroots level who want to leave, and all the signs that are pointing to Britain’s continued membership of the EU meaning the total loss of what remains of our identity – and the end of everything it’s people hold dear ….. Britain, and it’s people will be seen by the world as voting to stay within the union.

Whether that will be true or not is apparently of no consequence, because that is what history will record as being the outcome of the June referendum.

On November 25th, 2014, at 11:30, the following comment was published on this site.

Coincidentally, this site was ‘hacked’ shortly afterwards.

This comment, along with other damning information in regard to one Julian Gilbert, AKA ‘Thomas Pride’, AKA ‘Dexter Spaniel’, and undoubtably a number of other fake online personas – was subsequently, and mysteriously, deleted.

It has now been reproduced here in full, with the kind permission, and indeed the blessing of the original author.

Outlaw, I never comment on blogs. Whether I agree or disagree with them I will generally wait until I have a private opportunity to talk with the writer. However, I had to comment here.

As a journalist and broadcaster I have come to understand that I upset some people. This could be for any number of reasons, including jealousy (they are not realising their own ambitions and they are mad that I am, or at least they perceive I am) through to these people have something to hide and they are concerned that I might be the type of person to uncover it. Or they could just find me annoying. Fair point.

Tom Pride is not a typical hate in that he once liked me. See here:


Self Explanatory really considering these days he refers to me as a Daily Mail/Express hack and phone hacker.

I am glad to see him revealed here. He needed to be. Predators like him must always be shown for who they are, for their behaviour is utterly vile and the worst of human nature.

For three years Julian Gilbert has spouted his lying, libellous bile about me. He has taunted me by refusing to reveal his true identity. He has spread untruths about me, and put myself and my family in jeopardy. And why?

Well, the first time he wrote lies about me his comments section went from a typical 4-5 comments per article, to between 300 and 400 when he mentioned me.

Its a pity you have behaved so shark-like Julian, because you are capable of brilliant writing. Its a shame you use it for utterly vile purposes.

I mean seriously, what is wrong with you?

I realise you have plenty on your plate. Being a father to two children who require regular hospital attention makes my heart go out to you. As a parent where if my daughter even so much as coughs my heart is pounding, I can only imagine the pain you and your wife must have endured over these last few years. And I truly feel for you Julian, that must be terrible.

Then there’s your online persona. Man alive. You have some issues. Primarily, your presence is not a positive presence. Despite outward appearances – ‘Tom Pride takes care of the people’ – ou do more harm than good.

The truth is you use my name to give an appearance that the Establishment – who you laughingly associate with me – is threatened by you. That’s just daft. Hardly anyone out of the blogosphere knows of your existence and certainly you are not seen as challenging the status quo, mainly trying to capitalise on the iniquities of it.

Even other bloggers can’t stand you – you are viewed as untrustworthy – and know your ‘work’ to lack honesty and credibility. Never let the truth get in the way of a few hundred more blog hits eh, Julian?

Where are your morals? Is this really what your parents and loved ones want and need for you in your life? Is this how you want to be remembered? As a man who told lies about others, didn’t care how it hurt and harmed the other person, and did it all behind the safe, unchallenged mask of anonymity.

Well fuck that!

If you say something about me, something intended to damage me then I have a right to know who you are.

And now I do.

I’m a bit disappointed to be honest. I thought you would be a bit more exciting instead of Mr Vanilla Man, a money-ed Ex Pat, who has lived in Poland for two decades. Jeez!

No wonder you have to resort to satire and plain old lies because you are not actually experiencing Britain like those of us who live here. Consequently your lack of real life knowledge is replaced by fiction.

And you apply that to many topics you cover. About Government, about media, about people like me. You have no experience of these things but you do possess an active imagination, sadly influenced and discoloured by a plethora of bigotries and stereotypes. Your behaviour towards me has revealed a very unsavoury character.

Round about the same thing happened to David Icke after my time spent with him.

That’s the thing about me, Julian, I believe that the true person, no matter how much PR they try and use to represent themselves, always emerges. I love that about human psychology, don’t you?

There’s such a beautiful rhyme and reason to it.

Talking about creativity … I heard Bourbonese Qualk. And may I say you were very wise to give up pursuing a music career.

So where to now Julian? We all know that Thomas Pride can only go on for so long and reach a certain audience. Your peak has happened. Sadly it came on the back of other people’s misery. You had a chance to do something good Julian and you blew it. I feel for you. But I also feel for your family. For their sake, as well as your own, get some help. You have a talent that is going to waster and is dying a slow, painful and public death.  Take care.

I wish you no harm, Julian. I will not take another moment to ponder the whys and wherefore of your behaviour, commenting here is my closure on this situation.

I am in the middle of two documentaries and a book, and they are important and have greater reach that your upset with me. You have my attention here only because I want to see it put down on record for others to read and on a forum that is respectable and does not trade on lies to get hits.

When you first started smearing me I must admit I was a bit shocked. With your twisting of words and half truths I realised that you were no different to the newspapers you claim to despise. And then it hit me. The fact that you are not in newspapers or on the radio or TV when other political commentators are, really hurts you.

I get really annoyed with people who read your blogs and think they are superior to readers of some of the newspaper I have written for. But they are not. Far from it.

At least newspapers have to go through some legal vetting, you write your lies and publish them. No fact checking, no quality control, and all from behind an anonymous avatar. Clearly a model that wouldn’t require a critical and questioning readership.

Julian I expect you to take segments of this and twist it like you took my original tweets and twisted them into me being a hacker, even though you had repeatedly been told the truth of the story by Outlaw. But you chose not to tell you readership that because the truth in this case would get in the way of the story you want to push. That of me being a hack and a hacker, when in reality I am neither.

Its both vile and a lie, but you are known only to a few thousand people and so your influence and reach is too small to do anything about. Thing is Julian, seeing as you pursue the idea that I am a hacker, you should really – as lee has already advised you – report me to the police. Its a serious crime as a journalist to do such a thing and you have a responsibility to see that it is pursued. I welcome a legal situation with you Julian.

Bring it on. I shan’t be instigating anything because defamation cases are out of my financial reach, and, as I have already explained, your not that well known and I want to focus my energy on the big boys I have to deal with.

So report me to the police, Julian, and make sure to give me the crime number, please. I will of course, cooperate fully with the police on such a serious accusation.

But you won’t will you?

it doesn’t pay you to pursue it beyond your own blog. Its all about blog hits isn’t it Julian? But when all is said ad done you still have to look your family in their eyes and know you’ve done the best that you can by them all.

Good luck with that. No amount of satire is going to save you there.

Sonia Poulton



There are times, when the longer you look at something, the less sense it seems to make.

When that happens, I have found that sometimes, a fresh pair of eyes can bring a new perspective, to something that should have been only too obvious all along.

A case in point.

A YouTube video, recently posted by an obviously angry guy, who seemed to have taken issue with an article that was printed in Scallywag Magazine.


Fair enough, I guess, everybody is entitled to an opinion, but there was something about the video that just did not ring true.

He was trying a little too hard to persuade the viewer, that the article he referred to, which incidentally named Derek Laud as an alleged Paedophile, who had abused a boy from a Care Home in north Wales, was simply ‘A pack of lies.’

He then went on to give a potted history of the accuser, a Stephen Hashim, painting him as a wholly untrustworthy, violent thug who ‘battered his kids’ and ended up in jail for it.

He did not elaborate on how he knew the content of the article to be untrue however, he must have just assumed that his words were to be taken as the truth.

I was well aware of the Scallywag article in question, having read it a few times over the last few months, finding no clear reason to doubt the accuracy of some of the content.

So I read through it again, coming to the same conclusion, that it seemed entirely plausible when compared against similar stories that have been emerging.

While talking to a friend a few days later, it became abundantly clear that the doubts I had initially felt about the content of the video, were in fact, justified.

During that telephone conversation, it was pointed out to me that the Scallywag article was published in 1994, a time when Derek Laud, would have been virtually unknown to anybody outside of the Conservative Party.

*The same year as the Gordon Anglesea libel trial*

He had only started to become ‘known’ during and following his appearance on ‘Celebrity Big Brother’ in 2005.

So my question is, why would a virtually unknown, Tory ‘Fixer,’ be named by somebody who was undoubtedly, not aware of the inner workings of the Tory Party?

Surely, if it was just another ‘Embroidery,‘ or a completely made up story, he would have named somebody who, would at least be recognised, in order to ensure a decent readership?

It would be pointless otherwise.

“Many people are not aware of the fact that during the two years leading up to Margaret Thatcher sweeping to power in 1979, there was a nationwide purge on the streets of Britain. Literally thousands of children were taken from their homes and families, often for the slightest misdemeanour, like truanting or dropping litter, and thrown into the British Care System.”

Families were broken up and scattered throughout the country, villages in Wales and the north of England were left almost without kids of a certain age. The reasons given at the time were that the crime figures had to be reduced before the Tories came to power!!

When you realise that those ‘crimes’ were along the lines of getting caught having a sly fag and playing truant (I kid you not) it becomes apparent that there was something very different going on..

Care Orders until the age of eighteen were the norm for any child who found themselves before the courts, in some cases all the children of worse-off families ended up in local authority ‘Care’.

And that is before I even mention the Miners, The Dockers, The Steelworkers and the Manufacturing Industries that were devastated and crushed beneath the expensive heels of the Thatcher regime. As the son of three generations of South Wales Coal Miners I feel nothing but contempt for Thatcher and the Tories.

My only regret at the passing of this woman is that she never faced Justice for the inhuman and despicable acts she and her colleagues committed against the children of this country”…..

Michael Howard, Baron Howard of Lympne, CH, PC, QC (born 7 July 1941) is a British politician who served as the Leader of the Conservative Party and Leader of the Opposition from November 2003 to December 2005. He had previously held cabinet positions in the governments of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, including Secretary of State for Employment, Secretary of State for the Environment and Home Secretary.

A lesser known fact about one time Tory Party Leader Michael Howard, is that he once harboured a serial paedophile in his very own constituency Party.

Father of two Robert Richdale had stood as a “family man” for the Conservative Party in the elections for Folkestone Town Council.

A sordid case history

But since 1963, the sexual pervert has been convicted of crimes including causing death by dangerous driving, drugs offences, and sexual offences involving girls under 16.

He has served a total of more than three years in prison for crimes including sexually abusing children. Mr Richdale received a caution for the most recent sexual crime, which involved a girl who visited his home in 1997.

“She told me she was 15 but she was 14 really. She stayed at my place and I woke up one morning to find her having sex with me. But I am not a sex case and I am not motivated by lust.

I wish everyone was like me,” he added.

Underage girls.

In 1973 at Sheerness magistrates, Mr Richdale – who lives in Bouverie Road West, Folkestone – also pleaded guilty to indecent assaults on two underage girls, and received a six-month sentence.

Howard’s links.

Michael Howard, who has called the BNP ‘thugs’ whilst harbouring perverts and liars in his own party cannot evade personal responsibility for this scandal. It was in his own constituency that this councillor sat and so the buck stopped with him.

Labour scandal

Tony Blair was a close friend of the vile Labour party member and paedophile Mark Tann who raped a four year child and who used the Labour party website to send child pornography e-mails to his close Labour associates.

Several well-respected journalists have made a number of serious accusations about a child-sex ring which goes to the very top of the Labour Party.

The issue is so sensitive and potentially damaging to the establishment that a 100 year secrecy ruling has been applied to the legal reports resulting from the sordid case of Thomas Hamilton who carried out the Dunblane school massacre and, who it is alleged, pimped young boys for senior figures within the Labour Party.

The British National Party has collated and maintained an extensive file on the numbers of child molesters and perverts in the Liberal, Labour and Conservative parties and if any interested journalist wishes to see a copy of the crime reports then please feel free to email the BNP and they will provide you with copies.

In the meantime the media will no doubt keep on churning out the overblown , bombastic, turgid, cliche ridden rhetoric about the BNP, whilst they continue to report the truth about the real scandals in British politics that the gutless editors and coward mainstream journalists are not prepared to print.

At the flat of Lord Boothby, situated at the prestigious address No 1 Eaton Square in Belgravia, three men looked up towards a photographer who duly pressed the camera’s shutter. The resultant photograph featured, perched on a small sofa, Lord Boothby himself, Ronnie Kray the infamous East End gangster, and Ronnie’s friend, the good-looking young cat-burgler called Leslie Holt.

It was early 1964, and for the struggling Conservative government at the time, the photograph not only threatened to cause another scandal that rivalled the previous year’s Profumo affair, but it almost certainly enabled the Kray twins’ criminal career of extortion and protection to remain pretty well unchecked for the next five years.

The Eton and Oxford educated Lord Robert Boothby was in 1964 one of the country’s more famous politicians (in March that year he had appeared on Eamonn Andrews’ This Is Your Life). He had entered Parliament at just 24 and had once been tipped as future leader of the Conservative party not least because he had been the private secretary and friend of Sir Winston Churchill. Churchill made him Minister of Food for the wartime government in 1939.

However Boothby was not without his flaws and was sacked only a year later after lying to parliament about a financial deal with which he had intended to pay off his, not inconsiderable, gambling debts.

Boothby remained in politics and was even made a peer in 1958 by the Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan. It was a particularly benevolent act as the first (and last) Baron Boothby of Buchan and Rattray Head had been having an affair with the PM’s wife since around 1930. During this time Boothby fathered a child with Lady Macmillan (the Macmillans brought up Sarah Macmillan as their own) but in those days no one broke rank and told the voters. In fact, it never even got to Sarah herself – she was apparently casually and cruelly told who her real father was when she was 21.

The writer and broadcaster Sir Ludovic Kennedy (and Boothby’s cousin) said of him “…to my certain knowledge (Boothby) fathered at least three children by the wives of other men (two by one woman, one by another).” Kennedy also once called him, and to his face, “a shit of the highest order”; Boothby’s response was to rub his hands, give a deep chuckle and say “Well a bit. Not entirely.

Boothby’s undeniable charm, along with his friends in very high places, kept any scurrilous rumours, malicious gossip and untoward publicity about him away from the front pages of Fleet Street .

However Britain’s newspaper industry was beginning to develop a taste for Establishment blood.

The colourful, although up to now reasonably discreet, life of Boothby was shaken up on the 12th July 1964 when the Sunday Mirror, as part of an ongoing expose on ‘the biggest protection racket London has ever known’, ran a story under the headline “Peer and a gangster: Yard probe.” The newspaper claimed that the police were investigating a homosexual relationship between “a prominent peer and a leading thug in the London underworld”. The peer was a “household name” and that the inquiries embraced Mayfair parties attended by the peer and the notorious gangster. The following week the Sunday Mirror’s front page announced “The picture that we must not print”.

However the newspaper helpfully described the picture, saying that it showed a gangster and the peer in the latter’s Mayfair flat.

A few days later the German magazine Stern, not so worried about Britain’s libel laws, printed an article entitled ‘Lord Bobby In Trouble’ and went so far as naming Lord Boothby and Ronnie Kray. When the story broke Boothby was holidaying in France and later would disingenuously say that he was initially baffled as to the peer’s identity. When he arrived home he called his friend, former Labour Party chairman and journalist Tom Driberg who, according to Boothby, said ‘I”m sorry Bob, it’s you’.

Lord Boothby was at this stage in a tricky situation, while he admitted to having met Ronnie Kray during two or three business meetings, he flatly denied the rest of the allegations. However if he decided to do nothing about the situation it would seem as if was admitting the accusations, but if he sued the Mirror he could be involved in a lengthy and expensive court case with the risk that the tabloid would rake up all kinds of revelations to support the story.

At this stage the people who led the Tory party were convinced that the scandal was likely to rival the ‘Profumo’ affair (which had similarly bubbled under the surface for a while) a situation the Tories could ill-afford as there was almost certainly a general election looming. Two Tory back-benchers had even reported to their Chief Whip that they had seen “Lord Boothby and (Tom) Driberg importuning males at a dog track and were involved with gangs of thugs who dispose of their money at the tracks”.

At Chequers the story and its implications were debated by the Lord Chancellor, Lord Dilhorne, the Home Secretary, Henry Brooke, and the Prime Minister and they must have thought the worst.

Luckily for the Tories Boothby’s connection with Tom Driberg, which was coming to light, meant that the Labour party were in no mood to take advantage of the situation. If Boothby went to court then it seemed more than likely that Driberg’s private life would also be raked over and exposed. According to Francis Wheen – his biographer – Driberg was a regular at Ronnie Kray’s flat, where ‘rough, but compliant East End lads were served like so many canapes’.

It was known to most of Westminster and Fleet Street (Driberg had been the William Hickey gossip columnist in The Daily Express) that few attractive men were safe from Driberg’s attentions and he was, as a contemporary would describe him, “a voracious homosexual”.

Homosexuality was then, of course, illegal – voracious or otherwise. By all accounts Driberg was an enthusiastic follower of the concept that there is no such thing as a heterosexual male, only that some are a bit obstinate.

In 1951, to the complete and utter disbelief of Westminster, Driberg announced that he was to marry an Ena Binfield. Churchill, shown a picture of the rather, it has to be said, plain bride-to-be, remarked, ‘Oh well, buggers can’t be choosers.’ A policeman at the commons expressed sympathy for Binfield: ‘Poor lady, she won’t know which way to turn.’

The involvement of Tom Driberg MP in the story meant that Harold Wilson’s personal solicitor, the overweight and rather louche solicitor Arnold Goodman became involved. To Wilson, as well as many others, Goodman came by the name ‘Mr Fixit’. The lawyer offered to represent Lord Boothby and advised by Goodman, Boothby wrote a famous letter to the Times denying all of the Mirror’s allegations. The letter stated that he was not a homosexual and that he had met the Ronald Kray;

“who is alleged to be king of the underworld, only three times on business matters and then by appointment in my flat, at his request and in the company of other people … In short, the whole affair is a tissue of atrocious lies.”

Boothby also wrote to the Home Secretary explaining that he had not known Kay was a criminal, and had in any case turned down the business plan he had been discussing with him. Kray had wanted to be pictured with Boothby because he was a personality, and it would have been churlish to refuse. The Kray twins at this stage were not, to the general public anyway, particularly well-known but this was changing, much to the twins delight, because they liked having their photographs taken with well-known celebrities of which Lord Boothby was one.

After The Times published the letter Goodman won a quick agreement from the International Printing Corporation, owners of the Sunday Mirror, saving Boothby from the court case he, and the Government, were dreading. This wasn’t all, Goodman won his client a record out-of-court settlement of £40,000 and a grovelling and demeaning public apology signed by Cecil King, the chairman of IPC.

Derek Jameson, the Mirror picture editor, and future editor of the Daily Express and News Of The World, at the time remembered that for a long time Fleet Street refused to go anywhere near the Krays: ‘Dodgy trouble, £40,000, not very nice,’ he said. Subsequently the Twins were known by the Mirror for years as ‘those well-known sporting brothers’.

The Commissioner of the Metropolitan police – Sir Joseph Simpson – had to deny publicly that there had been a police investigation of the Boothby-Kray affair. However since the beginning of 1964 the Kray twins and their gang had been under the scrutiny of Detective Chief Inspector Leonard Read, also know by his nick-name ‘Nipper’

On January 10th 1965 the Kray twins were arrested and charged with demanding money with menaces from Hew McCowan the owner of a club in the West End called the Hideaway. They were refused bail and sent to court.

It was hard enough for Read to find anyone with enough suicidal tendencies to testify against the Krays as it was, but the case against them wasn’t helped when a month after their arrest Boothby stood up in the Lords and inquired whether the Government intended to keep the Kray twins in custody for an indefinite period? He added ‘I might say that I hold no brief for the Kray Brothers’. There was a complete uproar in the house after the question, to which Boothby shouted ‘we might as well pack up’.

At the end of the trial the jury failed to reach an agreement and a re-trial was ordered however the judge eventually stopped the trial finding for the defendants. It must have seen to Fleet Street and the Metropolitan police that the Krays had a complete hold over the Establishment (it is without doubt that the Krays must have been essentially blackmailing Boothby for him to ask questions in the House of Lords on their behalf) and indeed their control over London’s underworld continued seemingly unchecked for the next four years.

Lord Boothby married for the second time in 1967 to a Sardinian woman called Wanda Sanna thirty-three years his junior. ‘Don’t you think I’m a lucky boy!’ he shouted out to well-wishers outside the ceremony at Caxton Hall round the corner from his flat.

He died in Westminster in 1986 aged 86.

The Krays were arrested again in 1969 for the murders of George Cornell and Jack ‘The Hat’ McVitie. Sixteen of their firm were arrested at the same time thus helping witnesses to come forward without fear of intimidation. As soon as people started speaking out it was relatively easy to gain a conviction.

Ronnie and Reggie were sentenced to life-imprisonment with a non-parole period of 30 years for the murders of Cornell and McVitie, the longest sentences ever passed at the Central Criminal Court for murder.

Tom Driberg, known to many as ‘the most disreputable man in parliament’ was made a peer in 1974 and died of a heart-attack in the back of a taxi in the summer of 1976.

As for the third man in the picture, not much is known what happened to the cat burglar Leslie Holt – he was far less in the public eye than the other characters in the story.

He was Ronnie’s sometime driver and lover and he was used as occasional bait to entrap the likes of Robert Boothby and Tom Driberg (who both loved the occasional dangerous foray to the other side of the tracks).

Holt eventually became the partner of a Dr Kells based in Harley Street and it was said that the society doctor would supply customers for his cat-burglary activities. It was a lucrative project that worked well until police became suspicious of the criminal double act. Holt suddenly died at the hands of Kells under anaesthetic for a foot injury and the doctor was arrested but eventually mysteriously acquitted.