◆ SpookStack

wt abe Ps THE PRESS, THE POLICE AND THE SECURITY SERVICE-. | 278. At the close of these two Parts, the question must be asked : Where lies the responsibility for what occurred? tt 279. The primary responsibility must, of course, rest with Mr. Profumo: First, by associating with Christine Keeler as he did: Secondly, and worse, by telling Jies about it to colleagues and deceiving them: Thirdly, and gravest, by the falsity of his solemn statement to the House of Commons. 280. But there is a question as to the secondary responsibility, Ought the Security Service to have reported to a Minister the information they had on 7th February, 1963? Or the police to have reported their information, particularly the statements of Christine Keeler on 26th January, and 4th and 5th April, 1963? Lastly, ought the Sunday Pictorial to have disclosed the ‘Darling’ letter? Or the story that Christine Keeler had told them? It may very well be that if any such material had been placed before the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary, or indeed any Minister, Mr. Profumo would not have succeeded in deceiving them. The Ministers would not have accepted his assurances. He would have resigned earlier and never made his personal statement. Let me take these in the reverse order. , (i) The Newspaper 281. It is noteworthy that the senior executive of another newspaper did go to Admiralty House on Ist February, 1963, and gave them information on the ground that it was a security matter. It may be asked: Ought not the newspaper itself to have done so, the newspaper which actually held the * Darling’ letter and had Christine’s story? They were under no legal duty, of course, but was it not their public duty? If the information had disclosed a present and grave risk, affecting the very security of the country, no one would doubt that it would have been their duty to tell those in authority. So also if it pointed clearly to a Minister being, at the present time, a security risk, it might well have been their duty. But the case does not come as high as that. The ‘ Darling’ letter was, as the newspaper said, “ effusive, but not conclusive”. They were not even sure it was genuine. And they did not know how far Christine Keeler was trustworthy. Stephen Ward had told them that what she was saying about Mr. Profumo was quite untrue. In any case it was 18 months ago. It was a story to be told, not a danger to be averted. That is, if the story cduld properly be published at all. As it was, they decided not to publish it. They changed the policy of the paper and decided not to publish that type of story. I do not think the newspaper was in any way at fault in keeping the story and the letter to themselves, as they did, until after Mr. Profumo resigned. After all, many knew the letter existed. No omm, ever asked to see it. = (ii) The Police 282. It was unfortunate that the police did not take a full statement from Christine Keeler on Ist February, 1963, as arranged, or a day or two later. It might have led to further inquiries and brought everything to a head -. ON 95 ~ a : s)