Telephone: London 940 9214
350
20 Bishops Close/Ham Common/Richmond/Surrey/UK
16 November 1973
Sir
STONES,SWEETS AND BUGGERY
My attention has been drawn to three items appearing in another newspaper (the South China Morning Fost) concerning the plot by certain criminal elements in the CID in 1966 to at least discredit two public figures who for years had been outspoken in their attacks on police corruption and the narcotics trade.
When genuine, spontaneous and peaceful demonstrations took place at Star Ferry concourse in April 1966 to protest against Government approval for increased ferry fares on behalf of the Jardine,Matheson & Co Ltd subsidiary 'Star Ferry', principal demonstrators, Lo Kei and So Sau-cheung were joined by a known police informer who it was urged them to take more militant action and to associate themselves with the two public figures, one of whom was Mrs Elsie Elliott, an elected Urban Councillor. The demonstrators did as the police agent advised and by the two public figures they were advised to stay within the law.
During the riots which followed in Kowloon, Lo Kei was subjected to the attentions of a man who fed him liquor and who at a later court trial stood as a witness against him and himself confessed to being a police informer. Lo Kei testified at the Hogan Tribunal inquiring into "the causes of the Kowloon disturbances" that this informer had in fact advised him on courses of action to take to build up the protest.
The first police informer, however, went further. He led a mob attack on a Tsimshatsui hotel for which offence he was subsequently arrested and imprisoned. The informer's mother, a proprietress involved in the running of a Tsimshatsui establishment requiring a liquor licence, then sought Mrs Elliott's aid to find a solicitor to assist her son at the time of his arrest. At the Tribunal the informer stated that Mrs Elliott had offered to get him a solicitor.
At the Tribunal two pieces of evidence were introduced which were intended to lead at least to the discrediting of the two public figures, something the conspirators in this sordid plot achieved ultimately through the carefully written Hogan Report. It should be pointed out that both figures had in September 1965 led in producing a report on organised crime and corruption one conclusion of which had been that an external inquiry should be appointed to examine these matters of crime and corruption. Such an inquiry would, I venture, have publicly recorded the truth of widespread corruption which supplies, through protection of drugs, gambling and prostitution vast sums of money to corrupt officials. It might well have led to a reduction in the corrupt monies received by corrupt officials and possibly to prosecution of corrupt elements. These elements, it will be understood, had therefore a great deal to lose if Mrs Elliott and her colleague were successful in securing an externally-appointed inquiry.
To secure this inquiry Mrs Elliott flew to London, to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies to appoint a Royal Commission. The other public figure, however, performed a volte face. He said publicly that this was not the time for such an inquiry, an odd position to adopt having in mind his view of some six months previously.
At the Tribunal known to some policemen as "The Buggers' Opera"- attempts had been made to introduce testimony, from young boys, related to "sex practices". What these alleged practices had to do with the causes of the riots is most questionable, as is the motive of counsel for the police in introducing this matter into the proceedings. However, much was happening behind the scenes which the public did not know about. In fact the CID had secured from some boys statements to the effect that they had been involved in homosexual practices with a public figure. (I will point out here that during a routine lecture on the law of buggery
есе бей
OVER/