Banned Portillo's State Secrets

One thousand years of history under one roof,

the National Archives, a treasure house of secrets.

The records of extraordinary times and people.

These files are this nation's story, our shared past.

Documents housed here were highly classified,

intended for the eyes of only the privileged few,

protected from your sight for decades.

But not now.

I've been granted special access to files once kept hush-hush.

I'll unearth amazing tales from our hidden history.

Forget what you've been told,

these documents tell the truth.

Coming up in this programme, banned, censored and forbidden.

How a Beatle's art was condemned as obscene.

I feel, behind the scenes, somebody's said, "Let's get Lennon."

Not welcome in Britain.

The religious leader that the government tried to keep out.

Do you ever think that you might be quite mad?

Oh, yes.

The one man in the world who never believes he's mad is a mad man.

And town versus country.

An age-old conflict between concern for animals and local tradition.

It's this idea that all of these Londoners,

coming up here, telling us what to do.

We have been doing this for centuries.

No! No!

Come on... Come on...

Oh, no...!

We British love our Carry On films...

You're only after one thing.

Why? What's the matter with the other one?

..for their smutty humour.

But when does rude become crude?

And when does art cease to be art,

passing from risque to obscene?

The state has always imposed censorship,

and the first conviction for obscenity was in 1727

against the intriguingly-named publication The Nun In Her Smock.

Not until 1960 could literary merit be pleaded as a defence,

tested in the famous prosecution of the novel Lady Chatterley's Lover.

That trial inaugurated the struggle between the artists

and the authorities.

45 years ago, the work of one person of fame and influence

tested the authorities' tolerance beyond its limit.

Sexual intercourse began in 1963,

which was rather late for me.

Between the end of the Chatterley ban and The Beatles' first LP.

Philip Larkin's amusing verse precisely dates

the beginning of the permissive society

and places the Fab Four at the heart of it.

And at the heart of The Beatles was John Lennon.

From mop-top to peace activism,

he was the band's trendsetter.

By the turn of the decade,

he'd gone his own way as a musician

and broke the boundaries with pen and ink.

In 1970, an exhibition was staged at the London Arts Gallery

of certain of his lewd lithographs.

A complaint was made

and the Metropolitan Police went to investigate

under 1839 obscenity legislation.

In these wonderful documents

is the testimony of Assistant Detective Inspector Frederick Luff.

"Should these lithographs be judged works of great artistic merit

"or not obscene,

"I feel sure the progressives have no need to endeavour

"to repeal the obscenity laws,

"ie, nothing is obscene.

"Many toilet walls depict works of similar merit.

"It is perhaps charitable to suggest

"that they are the work of a sick mind."

But he is worried about the great influence

of John Lennon as a Beatle.

Who made the complaint that caused the police to investigate?

The archives contain a statement from a Mrs Nanci Creer,

a justice of the peace,

who described her horror on visiting the exhibition.

"When I saw the first picture on the far wall, I was stunned.

"I couldn't believe what I was looking at.

"I went on and looked at two or three more.

"I went to the other wall

"and, suddenly, I felt I couldn't stay in the gallery any longer.

"I went over to my husband, who hadn't left the first picture.

"I took him by the arm and I said, 'I can't stay in here.

"'I'll go on up the road. You can follow me.'

"He turned, looked at me and said,

"'You're red in the face. You're scarlet.'

"As I spoke to him, I realised that I was red with embarrassment."

Well, what was the nature of these works of art

that had provoked such a strong reaction?

I can see here the pieces on the wall.

And, yes, yes...

I'm getting a kind of idea of what kind of...

Ah, yes, yes...

HE CHUCKLES

Oh, John...!

Yeah, no, they are pretty explicit.

They really show all the variations of sexual intercourse and erm...

Oh, yes, a few solo performances by Yoko Ono...

Well, whatever were the merits of John Lennon as a lithographer,

he believed that all you need is love.

Imagine!

By 1970, Lennon had little left to prove as a musician or a songwriter.

But to gain acceptance as a graphic artist was much harder.

What do you regard as the artistic merit of the lithographs

or so-called lithographs?

Most of the art establishment thought that Lennon

was trading on his reputation as a pop star.

They were denounced as poor drawings.

And, in actual fact, they're not.

They're actually, by today's standards,

actually rather accomplished drawings.

You can tell he's trying to be amusing

and that's a difficult skill to master.

Of course, Lennon wasn't alone in his creative endeavours.

By this time, he was in love with and heavily influenced by Yoko Ono,

who was also no stranger to controversy.

She brought out, she encouraged his art.

She encouraged him to do it, about having no boundaries.

But both of them were obsessed by bottoms

and were obsessed by naked people enjoying them.

But, don't forget, they'd been to art college. At least, John had.

If you're at art college, you do life drawings,

so you're used, from a young age, to drawing the male and female nude.

Let's turn to the matter of obscenity.

The policeman, Mr Luff,

in the documents that I've seen says,

"Now, if this isn't obscene, nothing is obscene."

Do you think they're as obscene as you can get?

No, they're not nearly as obscene

as things that were produced even before John Lennon

was producing those drawings.

They're merely an affectionate repertoire of lovemaking skills.

Well, that was not the view of the police,

who raided the exhibition the day after it opened

and stripped the offending artworks from the walls,

much to the annoyance of the gallery's owner.

I'm just amazed and I find it rather humorous.

It seems to me, if the police wanted to seize anything,

they'd go down to Soho, seize smut, seize blue movies.

And it appears they seized the art mainly because John Lennon did it.

I actually suspect the police, because it happened so quickly

and they'd got these people making these really silly comments

that they were disgusted by it,

I feel, behind the scenes, somebody's said, "Let's get Lennon."

But if that was the plan, it didn't work.

The gallery owner was taken to court,

but the case was thrown out.

And Lennon's works were later displayed across the world.

Where does this stand

in the battle for the permissive society, do you think?

I think it's incredibly important,

because the failure of that trial

really marks the point at which youth culture has won

and the establishment has lost.

They tried very hard to victimise

many of the more important major characters of the '60s...

Mick Jagger, Keith Richards were others.

And they failed in all cases.

The lithographs, condemned as obscene at the time,

are now worth an estimated £85,000,

a price perhaps inflated by the state's attempt to ban them in 1970.

Proving that, while money can't buy you love,

it can secure you an outline of lovemaking.

If I say the word Scientology,

you'll probably think of movie A-listers,

like Tom Cruise and John Travolta.

But long before this religious movement became big in Hollywood,

it was attracting followers in Britain.

And as secret documents show,

the religion was causing alarm amongst government ministers.

Scientology's founder, L Ron Hubbard,

was a science fiction writer

with a vision for a new concept of religion.

What is Scientology, How would you describe it?

Well, it's very interesting.

You've just asked a question like,

what are the contents of the Encyclopaedia Britannica?

Answer in one word.

In 1959, he moved its world headquarters to Britain,

to Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead in Sussex.

Scientology teaches that we are immortal beings

trapped on earth in a human body.

By undergoing a series of classes,

followers can train their minds,

free themselves of their human form

and reclaim their true selves.

Critics accused Hubbard of running a money-making cult

of brainwashing and worse...

Do you ever think that you might be quite mad?

Oh, yes.

The one man in the world who never believes he's mad is a mad man.

Scientology caused worries for MPs and the media,

but those who attacked it could face libel writs.

The churches' leaders were willing to fight back.

So, it's just as well that they didn't see this...

A secret dossier

for the Department of Health and Social Security in 1975.

Well, here we have a report into Scientology.

"The teachings of Scientology

"create family discord and break up marriages.

"In fact, members are ordered to disconnect from their families.

"A child of six years of age was declared a 'suppressive'

"because she would not disconnect from her mother."

The report shows alarm

about the church's alleged disciplinary actions.

"A person who is classified by a Scientologist as an 'enemy'

"is 'fair game'.

"He may be deprived of his property by any means,

"be tricked, sued or lied to or be destroyed.

"The Scientologists in Britain are based in East Grinstead.

"The conditions under which Scientologists live in East Grinstead

"are like those in a police state."

And in 1977, the department remained unimpressed

by Scientology's claim to be a true religion,

writing in a letter that Scientology

was "an organisation that is essentially evil".

The hostility went beyond words.

In 1968, the government banned Scientology members

from entering Britain to train or study.

Hubbard moved his world headquarters to a fleet of ships,

although the religion continued to operate in East Grinstead.

Today, Scientology has increased its number of bases around the country,

like this one in London.

So, did the government's action work?

The travel ban...

How effective was it against Scientology?

It didn't really have the effect that they were intending it to have.

And, in some ways, it might actually have had the opposite effect.

There was a lot of publicity about the ban.

People were reading about Scientology in the press and thinking,

what is this, this new science in mental health?

It looks as if it's something I might be interested in.

In some of this,

the British government seems to be wrestling with the issue,

is Scientology a cult or a religion?

What is the difference?

Some people would say

the difference between a cult and a religion

is about a million members.

It's just a matter of size.

Other people would say a cult is a religion I don't like.

Which I think is a great definition.

Personally, I don't think the word cult is very helpful.

Even established religions

have a lot of good and bad within them.

And I personally know people in the Church of Scientology

who have thoroughly enjoyed being in it, who've gained a lot from it,

who may have left it now,

but who still believe in the principles of it.

Despite legal challenges, the travel ban remained in place.

Then, at the end of the 1970s,

there was a change of government

and, according to secret papers, a reversal of policy.

Apparently, as the result of a very personal decision

by one Margaret Thatcher.

In manuscripts she writes,

"We really cannot keep this ban,

"unless we're ready publically to say why

"and to support the conclusion with evidence.

"The question is not whether we approve Scientology or not,

"but what possible justification is there for this unique ban."

I suspect that Mrs Thatcher saw this

as an issue of personal freedom versus state meddling.

But I'd like to hear the view of ex-civil servant Graham Angel,

who provided briefings for her and other ministers.

The fact that the Prime Minister had a clear view,

was really what determined what happened.

Why did the Prime Minister have a clear view? Do you know that?

She had two constituency people

who were Scientologists.

And they went to see her and argued that the ban was unfair.

I think, and you, Michael, will know more about

Margaret Thatcher's views than me,

but I think she believed that it wasn't the government's job

to tell people this is a good religion,

this is a bad religion

and this isn't a proper religion.

Government should mind its own business.

What did your paper say in the end?

It came out pretty clearly, in the end.

But the case for maintaining the ban couldn't be sustained.

We found that the Department of Health,

which still wanted to keep the ban in place,

couldn't find a psychiatrist who would stand up in court

and give evidence to the effect that

Scientology damaged people's mental health.

Which really didn't make much of a case.

The lifting of the ban,

you were happy that that was the right decision?

Yes, I was.

I could have made a case to go the other way

but, if it was left to me,

I think the balance of advantage was in favour of lifting the ban.

You civil servants are splendid.

If required, you could have made an argument the other way!

I gave them both sets of arguments and they had to choose.

Nobody voted for me!

Splendid!

This impressive building,

the Church of Scientology, in the heart of the City of London,

proclaims that the travel ban didn't work.

Indeed, it may simply have attracted more attention, even support,

for the Scientologists,

And standing, as it does,

just a short walk from the iconic St Paul's Cathedral,

it proclaims, "You've tried to ban us, but you've failed!"

The running of the bulls.

Colourful,

exciting,

dangerous.

This could only happen in Spain.

Couldn't it?

Actually, no.

I've found a document that reveals how bullrunning

wasn't always confined to the streets of Pamplona.

It also took place in Britain.

In Lincolnshire, there was a bullrunning festival

for almost 650 years,

attracting crowds, who chased the animal through the streets,

before cornering, killing and butchering it.

The citizens considered it a fun day out.

But, by the 19th century, it faced disapproval.

In 1824, a group of reformers, including William Wilberforce,

founded the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.

And in 1837,

they targeted the practice in Stanford in Lincolnshire

of running bulls through the streets.

This beautiful document is a report by the secretary of the society,

a Mr Thomas, who visited the bull run

to monitor whether local magistrates

were enforcing the law against animal baiting.

He took two constables along with him as back-up, one called Rogerson.

But, despite having the law on their side,

it's fair to say that these out-of-towners

were not made welcome.

The constables are not very warmly received.

"Upon entering the building, the greatest disorder prevailed.

"Shouts of, 'Bull! Bull! Yahoo! Yahoo!' shook the building.

"Threats of the most disgusting nature

"were used towards them

"and language most obscene applied to them.

"One fellow, with a long, pointed stick,

"approached Rogerson and told him that,

"'Death stared him in the face'."

"The mob consisted of the lowest vagabonds

"and others apparently more respectable."

On this occasion, the society was not successful

in stopping the running of the bulls.

The secretary, Mr Thomas, says,

"The triumph of the Bullards here yesterday was very painful to me.

"Their cruelty to the bull, when he was helpless,

"was extreme and long-continued."

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

lost that battle in Stanford,

but won the war.

Two years later, the last ever bull run took place.

If you fancy the rough and tumble of the bulls,

nowadays, there's no point taking a train to Stanford.

You must take a plane to Spain,

Ole!

The case proved that what we now know as

the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

was determined to force animal welfare onto the public agenda.

To discover more about its history,

I'm off to one of its modern animal sanctuaries

to meet Professor Hilda Kean.

Where does the movement get going?

It gets going, and this is important, in London.

And it's the new city.

London is a focus for modernity

and you've got practices that are seen as a form,

and described as a form,

of medieval barbarism.

Farm animals, particularly on the way to market,

being beaten

and, more importantly, people seeing it.

Many rural people didn't share this new view of the world.

Country and town were on a collision course.

It's this idea that, what are these Londoners coming up here,

telling us what to do?

So, it seen as somebody else outside the locality

that is creating laws

that ban something they've been doing for centuries

and, supposedly, nobody locally has been complaining about it.

And, actually, why should London care what happens in Stanford?

London should care, and did care, what happened in Stanford

because this epitomised both the unruly nature of some of the...

what were seen as the lower orders.

But also, they were concerned about the fact

that a bull was being treated in this way.

City dwellers telling country folk to ditch their traditions

because they consider them unseemly and cruel...

To some, this might start to sound familiar.

It's time to talk to some of those

at the centre of a modern rural controversy.

Here in the kennels of the Essex Hunt,

these boards record the seasons of hunting

going all the way back to 1910-11.

In that year, they had 118 days of hunting.

114 foxes were killed.

A record year seems to be 1912-13.

118 foxes killed.

Then again, in 1926-27, just 69.

Now, if your reaction to all this is to cringe and to feel horror,

then you may understand the division of opinion

around the time of the 1837 Stanford bull run,

because some people felt

that they're engaged in a natural country activity

and that they were the innocent victims of metropolitan do-gooders.

Robert Ogden is the Huntsman of the Essex Hounds.

For him, fox-hunting is simply a way of life.

Robert, how many hounds are we walking with today?

We've got 36 couple here today.

-36 couples. 72.

-Yeah.

Yeah, we always count them in couples.

It's easier when we're out in the hunting field.

I'm being pushed around quite a lot by the hounds as we're walking.

Give me some idea of how strong these dogs are.

Oh, yeah, this dog, for instance,

Ranger here, he'll weigh up to 70 kilos, he will.

So, there's some weight to them, behind them.

And how often do they get to hunt?

We hunt from September through to November.

We hunt three mornings a week.

And then, after November until February, we do two days a week.

And then, after February, back to three days a week.

-That's a lot of hunting.

-Yeah.

In 2002, Robert and nearly half a million others

marched through London.

They wanted the metropolis to sense rural indignation.

With echoes of 19th century Stanford,

the supporters of the Countryside Alliance

feared laws that trampled on rural customs.

This time, a ban on hunting with hounds.

The row over the ban exposed deep cultural differences

between the shires and urban Britain

and sparked a debate about what constitutes

unacceptable behaviour to animals.

James Barrington, who campaigns on behalf of the Countryside Alliance,

has a clear view.

Anything that is gratuitously cruel,

anything that you can prove to be cruel,

in other words causing unnecessary suffering to any animal,

that should be the starting point.

You're pleased that bullrunning no longer occurs

as it did in Stanford in 1838?

Oh, yes, I certainly am.

I mean, that's clearly a baiting activity,

and as someone said at the time,

"Look, hunting with the aim to kill

"is very different to baiting with the aim to torture."

And so baiting is not hunting.

And that is something which I know

anti-hunt people like to try and confuse,

but they're two very different activities.

Do you think there's an argument that,

if something is so deeply in your culture,

even if it does involve a cruelty to an animal,

you can respect it as part of a human or a national culture?

Well, I think that is an interesting point,

because there are certain activities, like falconry, in this country

that has been accepted as a natural part of our culture

and is protected that way.

Now, you spend some of your time lobbying politicians

and officials about laws.

Do you think we've got laws on animal welfare about right today?

As far as wild animals are concerned,

no, I don't think we have the law right.

I don't think the Hunting Act has done good for any animal at all

and here we are ten years after that particular law

and it's still as hot an issue as it ever was.

Back at the kennels,

the hounds have been washed

and are ready for feeding.

It's a diet well-suited to their hunting instincts...

Raw meat.

Can you be sure they all get their fair share?

I think it's time to leave the pack to its breakfast

and watch from a safe distance.

This macabre sight of a few dozen hounds tearing up raw meat

is quite a culture shock for a townie like me.

And that's really been at the heart of the issue.

A clash between people from the cities

and those who uphold the traditions of the countryside.

Silence reigns.

Come on, get over!

Today, I've seen some really saucy lithographs by John Lennon.

But the people who tried to ban them might be dismayed

that today there's a torrent of pornography

readily available on the internet.

It's difficult to make bans work,

as ministers discovered

when they tried to exclude Scientologists from Britain.

As for the ban on fox-hunting,

it's made little visible difference to country culture and tradition.