PIE – documentary evidence 2 – from Magpie 1-8 (trigger warning – contains disturbing material)Posted: February 26, 2014
[NOTE OF WARNING: In absolutely no sense whatsoever does the printing of the below material constitute any type of endorsement; in fact the very reverse]
Many people have sought to suggest that PIE was a minor organisation of no particular significance. As promised in my previous post, I will write a proper extended post on the organisation and its history (and ideology) later; but as time is limited at the moment, I propose simply to copy without comment (comment will come in that later post) a series of writings from and some information about Magpie: The Journal of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of which seventeen issues were produced from March 1977 to Summer 1982. These should give an idea of what the organisation was saying quite openly, and should leave no doubt that it was far from harmless.
Issue No. 1, March 1977
‘‘Magpie aims to provide paedophiles with their own journal, and to further the understanding and acceptance of true love for children in today’s society.
Magpie does not promote or otherwise encourage unlawful acts, sexual or otherwise.
All opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor, or of PIE.
Magpie welcomes critisism [sic], contributions, advice and comments from its readers.
Reprints from Magpie are welcomed, please credit your source.
Magpie is published each month by the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the national paedophile organisation and research group. Correspondence for the magazine should be addressed to the Editor, whilst all other communications should be addressed to the Secretary.
Our address is:-
1, Elgin Avenue, London, W9.’
‘Magpie is intended to provide members of PIE and their friends, with a regular up to date service of news about PIE and information about other matters of interest to paedophiles. Magpie will report the activities and decisions of the PIE Executive Committee, news of PIE local groups plus any other articles of letters of interest which may come to its notice.
‘Whilst I applaud the efforts of Warren Middleton in producing ‘Understanding Paedophilia’ and I congratulate the Editor of ‘Palaver’ on his latest production, with respect to both these people, I feel that news should be forthcoming on a regular basis. To this end, Magpie will be produced each month – provided that nothing untoward happens to the Editor to prevent this! To achieve regularity, Magpie will, I fear, have to be of somewhat simple appearance; I cannot hope to emulate the sophisticated layout and quality of the other two publications. However, I trust it will not be of too dull a content. ‘ (La Gazza Ladra, ‘What’s This’, p. 1)
‘On the 3rd of March, Tom O’Carroll gave a talk about paedophilia and PIE to the Winchester branch of CHE [Campaign for Homosexual Equality]. This was his third public speaking engagement; if he did as well on the first two occasions as he did this time, then he has impressed and enlightened many people. Certainly his audience were impressed and eve the most hostile questioner was won over by his performance . . Congratulations!’ (‘Secretary speaks to CHE’, p. 2)
You may remember that at the last AGM it was decided that we should invite one or more prominent people to become ‘Honorary Vice-President’ of PIE. A number of names have been put forward and some of these have been written to, although as yet no one has taken us up on our offer!
One of the people written to was Bryan Gould MP – chosen largely because of the speech he gave to the CHE [Campaign for Homosexual Equality] Conference in Southampton last year. Although he declined to accept, his reply is worth reporting. It reads:-
“Thank you for your letter and for your invitation to become an honorary Vice-President. I am afraid that I have so much on my plate at the moment that it would be unwise of me to take on any further responsibilities for the time being. I should be less than honest with you however if I were to give you the impression that lack of time is my only difficulty. As you say, yours is an unpopular cause, and whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for your objectives, I do not think it would be fair to my wife and family for me to take a public stand on it. They suffered somewhat as a result of my speech to CHE and while I am robust enough to take the comments, correspondence etc., my wife in particular reacts badly to it. I am sorry to have to send you such a disappointing reply.”
Now, if an MP, who depends upon votes and public good-will, can give us such a considerate reception, there must be someone, somewhere who would be prepared to help us in this way. Any ideas please? (p. 4)
Issue No. 2, March 1977
An article detailed a trip by outgoing chair Keith Hose to Holland:
‘At the end of last year I decided to take a holiday in Holland with a friend. This was not the first time I had been there, but unlike previous visits, I arranged to call on our friends in the Dutch paedophile movement. As a direct consequence I was left with a feeling of elation at the progress made in social and legal attitudes to paedophilia in Holland, and a desire to be part of what is going on there.
Unlike PIE, the Dutch paedophile organisation is not autonomous, and it is only part of a bigger organisation, the NVSH. The NVSH, so I was informed by Dr Bernard (an important member of the paedophile sub-group), was started some years ago to encourage contraception. Over the years the group took under its wing other sexual liberation causes, including the campaign for childrens’ sexual rights, and in 1971, paedophilia. Although the NVSH is an independent organisation with its own membership and democratic process, it has for the past few years been largely government financed. A popular organisation, it had over a quarter of a million members only a few years ago, it has a strong influence on public attitudes to sex.
‘More or less, there is a paedophile group in every major Dutch town, and in addition but separate, there are many more groups of the NVSH fighting for this liberation of childrens’ sexuality. Reading the leaflet I had picked up in the Den Haag paedophile group, I telephoned the contact number given – which I found to be the home telephone number of the Convener. Rudely, but without choice, I assumed he spoke English, and I asked if we could come to see him. Warmly he invited us into his home.
When we arrived there, we could hardly believe our eyes. For there above his door, in full view of the street, was a most outrageous paedophile poster. We had seen both this poster, and a poster of the childrens’ sexual rights sub-group before, but we did not expect to see either on display above the entrance to a paedophile’s home. Naturally, once inside, we asked our host if he had ever had any trouble with his neighbours concerning the poster, especially in view of the fact that his home was right next to a school. But no – he insisted that all his neighbours were very friendly.’ (‘pedofeely’, pp. 5-7 (all material here from p. 5))
There was a plug for an international conference on ‘Love and Attraction’ to be held at University College, Swansea, September 5th to 9th 1977, adverts for ‘Boy Love news’ from Germany (p. 7) a feature on what to do with arrested or having photographic material confiscated (‘Survival’, p. 8), reports on arrests (pp. 9-10) and a guide to world paedophile groups with contact addresses: Studiegroep Pedofilie, Belgium; Landelijke Werkgroep Pedofilie, Netherlands; Paedofil Gruppe, Denmark; NAPF (Pedofil Arbeidsgruppe), Norway; Paedophile group, Sweden; Schweizer Arbeitsgruppe Paedophilie (SAP), Switzerland; DSAP and DAP, West Germany; Rene Guyon Society, Childhood Sensuality Circle, (CSC), Hermes and Gay Pederast Liberation Front, all USA; and mentions of provincial groups in some of these countries as well.
Issue No. 3, May 1977
This contained the item about NCCL taking up the case of PIE, as mentioned in my other blog post, then had an article by Tom O’Carroll, ‘Of Chickens and Chicken Hawks’, looking at an article by an NBC journalist on boy prostitution, more ads and features as in issue 2, and then a reprint from Forum entiled ‘Child Foot Fetishist.
On the back page (p. 8) was a feature called ‘One Man’s Booklist’, the comments accompanying which I summarise as follows:
Chuck Selwyn, Andrea, sibling and father-daughter incest
Sherman Sands, Funky Faculty, female teacher seduces schoolchildren and teenage girls seduce principal. ‘ridiculously unreal’
Paul Roan, When Miss Warren Comes. Mostly lesbian, some hetero stuff between female teacher and pupils.
Paula Welch, Darling Daughter, ‘mother lets her lover have her minor daughter, much voyeurism, coprolalia as stimulant, etc.’
Paula Welch, Daddy’s Girls, incest, mother daughters father
Paula Welch, I Can’t Stop – similar to Funky Faculty
Denise Bryant, as told to Roger Blake, Mother and Daughter. Autobiographical documentary by divorced school teacher with 13 year old daughter.
Rina Marshal, as told to Dalton Edwards, Don’t Ever Stop. Autobiography of a nymphomaniac, including childhood experiences.
Four Way Incest, with intro and comments by Roger Blake. Documentary told by aunt, uncle, niece and nephew all involved with bisexual incest.
Wayne Gibson, as told to Dalton Edwards, The Oversexed American. Autobiography of male world traveller with many experiences with both young boys and girls.
Frank Sheffield, The Meat Rack. Male homosexual autobiography, exploits including many affairs with minor boys.
Incest Experiences, with intro and comments by John F Trimble. 9 case histories of adult-child incest.
Freaked Out, with intro and comments by Dalton Edwards. Like above, also paedophilia and child-child relationships.
Issue No. 4, June 1977
This issue contained procedural information about the organisation, and stories from Keith Hose, who had to go to New Scotland Yard, was asked about ‘a certain famous member of PAL’ and whether certain other people were PIE members (Hose apparently refused to divulge names), also about an Andre Thoren trying to blackmail a potential member of PIE, and the organisation being attacked by a Bournemouth woman, Christine Jolliffe, and how Tom O’Carroll had sought and gained much publicity for PIE (pp. 3-4)
There is an ad called ‘Girls for Boys’ School’, about a school for boys, Sexey’s School (sic), Lusty Hill, Burton, Somerset, taking 22 girl pupils in September, apparently quoted from The Times (p. 4).
Tom O’Carroll wrote a long item about the NCCL Gay Rights Conference and the issue of Chemical Castration, apparently ‘consented’ to by prisoners, but this was under duress (Tom O’Carroll, ‘NCCL Gay Rights Conference. Chemical Castration’, pp. 5, 7).
One letter asked where pictures could be processed safely, ‘Not pornography, just good natural pictures’ (p. 6). Fears were given how the murder of a 4-year old girl could be linked to paedophiles, and there was a report about a case in the Appeal Court involving three men who had had sexual intercourse with a 14-year old girl (pp. 6-7).
A ‘Non-Fiction Book List’ mentioned various PIE publications, and also Kinsey, aDutch book Sex mit Kinderen, Parker Rossman, Sexual Experience between Men & Boys, Timothy d’Arch Smith, Love in Earnest; Brian Reade, Sexual Heretics; J.Z. Eglinton, Greek Love; Thorkil Vanggaard, Phallos; and Paul Gebhard et al, Sex Offenders.
Issue 5, July 1977
The cover of this issue had a picture of a young boy (maybe around 8) in shorts on the cover.
There were reviews of films Walkabout, Fireworks/The Queen/Children, Satyricon, Fear Personified, Run Rabbit Run, and Child Art on p. 2, all dissected for paedophile elements. Then the first article in this journal appeared by Father Michael Ingram (who was later convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse during the time when these articles were written). I will copy a large section of this:
‘‘There seem to be few things that arouse the horror, anger and sometimes hysteria of society than the thoughts of children having sexual activity, especially with adults. Society’s attitudes are mirrored in prisons where those found guilty of offences against children need to be protected from other prisoners. But a cold examination of the facts indicates that much of this anger seems to be irrational and groundless, and that the reaction to discovery of the act can do more damage than the act itself.
Take the case of an eleven year boy whose parents overheard him tell his brother about a man who was ‘having sex’ with him. There was a family scene, mother crying, father packing up and down and vowing he could ‘kill the bastard’. The police were called in. the boy was interrogated over and over again by both parents and police. The boy was taken to the police station where he was told to lower this trousers. A doctor examined his penis, retracting the foreskin. The boy was made to bend down while a doctor put a lubricated rubber sheath on his finger which he inserted into the boy’s rectum. The man was charged, denied it and the boy was examined by the magistrates. The man was remanded on bail, so in order to prevent the boy meeting him again, he was sent to stay with relatives in Ireland until the trial three months later.
What seems to have happened was that the boy was rather deprived of affection from his parents who were cold and undemonstrative. He had often allowed the man to cuddle him, and this sometimes led to the man feeling him inside his trousers. If one can make a strong attempt to mask the disgust this might evoke, and consider the possible damage done to the boy by being starved of love at home, by enduring the anger, fearful interrogation, and most of all by submitting to the formal repetition by the doctor of the acts which were causing all the trouble, one can see that the offender was the last one from who the boy needed protection. As a psychiatrist involved in the case put it, “If he hadn’t been buggered by the man, he certainly had been by the doctor”.
The offender in this case was sent to prison, where he pretended to be there for larceny. He was put in the ordinary wing. His secret was discovered and he was beaten up, suffering severe injuries. He lost his job, was cut off from his family and his voluntary social work. He had done a great deal for his local community, especially for the children, and all this was forgotten. At the age of twenty-six he was a ruined man because he showed too much love for a little boy.
Nine years later the boy is now twenty, cold, repressed, afraid of sex, isolated and friendless, depending on anti-depressants to make his moods tolerable.
In the last nine years there have been considerable changes in police and legal practice, and nowadays the needs of the child are more taken into consideration. My experience is that parents also are less inclined now to ‘bring in the law’, but even so, much is left to be desired. Even recently, a little girl who was making allegations against a man was visited at her home by two uniformed police officers, when it had been explicitly promised that only plainclothes officers would be sent. But meaningful changes in the law will only be accomplished once public opinion has been changed and public fears allayed. Our society still thinks that children have no sexual feelings unless unnaturally aroused by depraved persons. We still think of adults whose love for children sometimes has sexual expression as being unspeakably degenerate and corrupting. We still reflect the legal idea that a young person under sixteen can not meaningfully consent to a sexual act, and we still think that children can be persuaded by adults to commit sexual acts against their will.
The most important thing it seems to me, and with this all readers would agree, is that our first duty is to protect a child from harm. What is controversial is the method by which we achieve this.
In the first place we need to recognise that children do have sexual feelings, and these feeling like all other childrens’ feelings are expressed in play. A lot of children will play at ‘peeping’ games, stripping games, competitions to see who can pee the highest and furthest, ‘knackering’ (boys grabbing or punching each others genitals), and even exploratory sexual acts. They are often interested in adults’ bodies and, from the age of about nine or ten, in adult’s sex lives. They are quite capable of indulging in sex games with willing adults, and even of provoking or initiating them.
In a study I have made of 57 boys who were ‘indecently assaulted’, 8 of them resisted the assault, which was discontinued for that reason. The rest appear to have been willing for it to take place. Thirty-eight of the boys returned to the same man for more, and three were promiscuous and made money by it. Eleven of the seventeen men involved in the study claimed that most of the children, if not actually initiating the activity, were at least seductive. In most of the cases, the sexual act was part of a more extensive demonstration of affection. The child appeared to need a lot of love.
In twenty out of the 50 families from which the boys came, the boys admitted to being frightened by their fathers, who were violent and/or given to drink. In 17 cases the father was absent due to death, divorce, or unmarried mother. In nine families the father was clearly dominated by his wife, was of weak character, and took no notice of his growing boys.
Nine of the boys felt rejected by their mothers, two mothers had deserted the family, 29 were suffering from depression and anxiety severe enough to need medical treatment. Only six boys had satisfactory relations with their fathers, and only eight with their mothers, (and this 8 included the six who had good relations with their fathers). All eight of these children rejected the act, told their parents about it, and, characteristically, the parents did not get upset, did not call in the police, and the only thing they did was to ask the present author to discuss the matter with their children.
All the acts in the above study are homosexual acts. Being a man, girls are not usually referred to me in cases like this. Statistically, heterosexual acts are much commoner (about three to one) and my findings may not be typical. But they do closely resemble results produced by other studies. They do not go to show that all children who get involved in sexual activity are disturbed and come from bad family backgrounds, but that such children do tend to be the ones who get involved because their need for affection is matched by the willingness of the man to give it.
But this has very unfortunate repercussions. There are many children in need of affection, for example, in children’s homes, and it is no longer possible for caring adults to show this affection in any meaningful way except for feeding and providing material goods. A man I once interviewed had been an assistant in a childrens’ home for seventeen years. He was adored by the children, they sat on his knee for stories, he kissed them goodnight, cuddled them whenever they seemed to need it. It was often suspected that he ‘went too far’ but there was no evidence, and one or two people in fact deliberately closed their eyes to the possibility. But he did not get promoted, and when he applied for other posts he never got them, in spite of the fact that he was such a wonderful assistant. Finally, his staff was joined by a middle-aged single woman who went on a witch-hunt once her nose started twitching, and evidence was unearthed that sent the man to prison for three years. The children in the home were left desolate and now, four years later in that same home, staff do not touch the children.
There is no evidence that sexual contacts with adults do any damage, psychological or moral, to the children any more than the ‘rude games’ that many of them play. There is considerable evidence that parental distress and police intervention do cause a great deal of harm, and there is overwhelming evidence that deprivation, especially deprivation of physical love, damages personalities and is a significant factor in the development of sexual disorders in later life.
I do not think that children should be encouraged to have sexual relations with adults, and I do think that problems could arise from them, given the unequal needs of the partners, but all the evidence I can muster indicates that children will take from a relationship what they need, and will grow out of it when they are ready. Of the 57 cases I studied, thirteen rejected the man and the act shortly afterwards, fifteen rejected it after some lapse of time, and of the rest I have no information. Only the 3 promiscuous ones stated that they did not regret the act, and they would do it again given the chance. All three have now grown up and are practising homosexuals.
What seems to be necessary, therefore, is an effort to inform the general public about the groundlessness of their fears, of the need for calm when an act is discovered, and a sense of balance about a child’s needs and vulnerability. Children need to be brought up in an atmosphere in which these topics can be discussed as calmly as school or play. In one family a boy announced that someone had ‘played with his willy’. His mother said “Did he, dear? Are you going to see him again?” “No. I don’t think so.” “I suppose you are right, it is better not to play at sexy things until you understand them when you get older.” Another mother said, “Oh, did he? Well I don’t think it is wise for you to go on seeing him at his house. If you want to see him again, invite him round for tea.” This was done. The matter was discussed with the man and the boy, and the mother and father said they felt their son was too young for such things. The mother of an older boy (aged 13) said, “Well I think you ought to ask advice about this. You like Father Ingram a lot, why don’t you go and ask him what he thinks? He understands these things better than your father and I.”
These reactions all seem to be healthy, but are only three compared with a whole lot of hysteria and rage that I have been called in to calm, usually too late to prevent the damage.
It is probably necessary to have a minimum age of consent, but I suggest it would be better to be flexible and prohibit sexual acts whenever there is an age difference of say, two or three years, when one partner is below the given age. This would be enough to protect children from emotional exploitation. Prosecutions should only be initiated if there has been violence or undue pressure, or indications of other forms of moral corruption, and so on. Medical examinations should be prohibited except when the child complains of pain, or when damage is suspected. Interviews should always be done by plainclothes officers in the presence of the parents when the children are very young, but with older children, the choice of speaking in the presence or absence of the parents should be left to the child. I have often found that older children prefer not to discuss things with their parents. But above all, society should not cut off from children the contribution that can be made to their welfare by those whose only fault is that their love leads to acts that society fears without reasonable cause, and whose importance diminishes in comparison with what their love can do.’ (The Rev Fr Michael Ingram, O.P. ‘”Filthy”’, pp. 5-6, reprinted from Libertarian Education)
Tom O’ Carroll would write underneath:
‘To the weary traveller, the Priory of the Holy Cross, Leicester is a haven of warmth and welcome; in the best traditions of the mediaeval Church, the wayfarer is plied with good, wholesome victuals and no shortage of drink either – and one’s host, the good Father Michael, is the very embodiment of that spirit of hospitality: convivial, affable, a man of charm and engaging conversation. All in all, a stout fellow!
I happen to believe that Michael Ingram, of the Dominican Order of preachers, represents the best of the 20th century Church too, though there are doubtless those in the Vatican who do not agree, for he has ‘advanced’ views on such subjects as birth control and abortion, and to my ignorant mind at any rate (untutored in theology, and therefore a suspect guide), his views on the Meaning of Sin and the Authority of the Church come exciting near to – dare I say it – heresy!
Established as a heavyweight intellectual – he was recently invited to deliver a series of lectures on sexual ethics to Harvard University no less – he nonetheless has work as a child counsellor in Leicester which keeps his feet firmly on the ground.
This work with children began when he studied child counselling as an associate student with the Tavistock Clinic, followed by work among deprived children in Camden, and later Leicester.
It has to be in this context that he has made an extensive, and largely positive, study of paedophile relationships between men and boys. The outcome of this study is to be a paper presented at the forthcoming Swansea Conference of the British Psychological Society on “Love and Attraction.”’ (p. 6)
A columnist by the name of Ray Halliwell wrote the following:
‘When I joined PIE some ten months ago, I wasn’t sure I had done the right thing. It wouldn’t have surprised me in the least to find half of Fleet Street on my doorstep one morning. If it had happened, I would have had a heart attack. However, since attending a PIE meeting last September, I made a decision – to ‘come out’.
At home I worked out a plan of action. Leave a copy of “Understanding Paedophilia” on the sideboard. A subtle hint here and there. Of course everyone thought I was going a bit crazy or something. Then it happened – one of my friends got the message – I had something to tell him. “I’m sexually attracted to boys,” I said. “Oh,” he replied. That was just about the last thing I had expected. The truth was that my real friends had long suspected that I was homosexual, and they were more interested in the price of a pint than the fact that I was paedophile. So far so good. Next thing I knew was when a spanner got thrown in the works when I was offered a job in a new town and accepted.
Now came the big problem. How to tell the new people? You can’t very well walk into the local and say, “hello, I’ve just moved here – nice weather – I’m paedophile, you know.” So I thought I’d wait until someone asked before I told thema bout myself. Of course no one did and I’ve now got myself into a situation where people assume that I am heterosexual. So I am starting all over again. Maybe I could try wearing a PIE tee-shirt or next time I get the urge to rush up Nelson’s Column and shout “I like boys, so what!” I should do it. Who knows, maybe I can make a success of this coming out thing yet.
Finally, on the off-chance that “horrified of Halifax” or “Disgusted of Dewsbury” or some neurotic gossip columnist is reading this piece, I have a word of advice for them.
I’ve no desire to change my sexual orientation and I am happy the way I am, thank you very much. There will always be people like me in the world to brighten up your day – that’s nature. If this fact disturbs you, I can recommend a very good psychiatrist.’ (Halliwell, ‘Coming Out’, p. 7).
There was a further Non-Fiction book list, and also a poem entitled ‘Children. North-South-East-West’ (p. 8)
Issues No. 6, August 1977
This had on the cover a picture of a young boy with their hands over their face. Importantly, this issue also featured an advert for a ‘Seminar on Paedophilia’ by the Dutch Dr Edward Brongersma, who would become closely involved with the paedophile movement. This was to take place on Thursday, 1/9/77 at Shaftesbury Hotel (p. 2).
In a long review of the film ‘Les Amitiés Particulières’ by Keith Hose (pp. 4-5), he wrote
‘The film portrays the younger boy as partly unrealistic, idealised character; a paederastic fantasy. He is beautiful, camply seductive, confident, cultured and mature. The book however, is not immune from this either, but whether one would call this a criticism, I am not sure. I still disagree with those who would say that a twelve year old boy can never have this degree of sophistication.’
Then the following was written by a Cyril Halley, entitled ‘Lament’, writing about the loss of a loved one who he will never see again:
‘The scene I shall ever remember was her languid expression, her listless gaze, as she went away, out of the room and out of my life.’
‘I shall never know either, how deeply Julie loved me, or indeed if she even loved me at all. We never discussed the question of love although I had said quite a few times when she needed consoling, “I love you, Julie, you know that.” She allowed me to kiss her on occasions and seemed to like a fuss made of her. She let me cuddle her and she was mildly jealous if I showed affection to another; but for all that I shall go through life continually thinking that my undying love was unrequited.
It was on Saturdays that Julie used to come and see me. She arrived at about 8pm and left at eleven. These three hours per week are imprinted on my memory. The lateness of the hour often made her sleepy towards the end of her stay, and then she slept in my arms, showing a loving trust that makes all else in life superfluous. The tender memories flooding back as I write this narrative are filling me with a sense of hopeless frustration.’
Her vision is before me now, holding the palm of her hand to her mouth to suppress excitement or uttering, as only she had not quite heard what was said to her.’
You see dear reader, my beloved Julie is only eight years old.’
An piece of fiction by Charles Napier, entitled ‘Spy-dophilia’, was a thriller involving a gay Los Angeles private eye, David Brandstetter (pp. 6-7).
On the back cover was a map of local groups, claiming 65 members in the London area, and many others all over the country (p. 8).
Issue 7, September 1977
This was the first properly typeset issue. There was a message on p. 2 from the convenor of the French group of PIE:
‘La première reunion du groupe francais a eu lieu recemment. Les autres reunions auront lieu chaque premier samedi du mois chez le member No. 234. Les personnes interessees de se joinder a nous sont pirees de prendre contact avec le member No. 234 en ecrivant a l’adresse de P.I.E. a Londres.’
In ‘Notes & News’ (p. 2) there was reference to a long article by Tom Crabtree in The Guardian. Then there were reports of how the ‘Love and Attraction’ conference at Swansea was moved, and how NUPE forced the conference organisers to eject Tom O’Carroll, who was also physically attacked. Also about how there was apparently much press hysteria, death threats, sackings, and a near riot in central London. After a meeting was planned at Conway Hall on Sep 19th, about 120 people, PIE members and press, went, ‘braving a barrage of abuse, blows and missiles rained on them by a crowd outside, at least partly organised by the National Front’ (p. 2).
On p. 3, there were letters from a John Page (who talked about living in ‘an age of utter barbarism which has been created largely by Christianity and Judaism combined’), an A. Paedophile (which included ‘Let us not equate “paedophile” with “child molester”. True paedophiles love all people, and especially the youngsters.’; and ‘I contribute to the NSPCC’) and a Nicholas J. Ferguson, London (who wrote ’One of the self-made ‘rules’ of responsible paedophiles is not to ‘share their young friends around’’. So no pooling of photographs, collections of diaries or letters) (p. 3).
Charles Napier wrote a poem about the now almost-mythological figure of Tom O’Connor (p. 4). And an article by Dr. Frits Bernard, who would become a regular contributor, referred to as ‘Psychiatrist, Sociologist, Writer’, said the following about the age of consent, mentioning that in some countries it is at age 12:
‘Some take as the criterion for drawing the boundary line the onset of puberty, the first menstruation or the first ejaculation. In my opinion this is a biologically acceptable criterion (it is a fact that can be observed) but represents no psychologically valid attitude. The affection of a girl or of a boy for a man or woman before reaching puberty and after passing this boundary, should be no different in terms of experience. Orgasms without ejaculation can give the same gratification as with ejaculation.’ (Dr. Frits Bernard, Psychiatrist, Sociologist, Writer, ‘Paedophilia. What are we talking about?’, p. 5).
The following letter appeared on the same page:
I was interested to read in MAGPIE No. 5 that you had received a copy of the Spartacus Holiday Help portfolio on paedophiles and their vacations. I wrote to the address you gave for further information, enclosing an international reply coupon, but have received no reply – – this was more than five weeks ago. I suppose it wouldn’t be possible to let me know what information was given on the two countries coming out top of the list, i.e., Sri Lanka and the Philippines? I am sure that this would be of interest to other members as well.
24 Aug. 77’
An article by a Robert Mitchell, on the search for the murderer of a young boy in West Yorkshire, argued against the Chief Constable’s position that all paedophile relationships should be eliminated because of this case. ‘Lots of friendly and loving people will be humiliated and tortured – kicked and punched in police cells; imprisoned for many years in order to “mark society’s strong disapproval”; in prison bashed and gang-raped, and driven to attempt suicide; and upon release have to live dogged by a criminal record’). Another by Ray Halliwell was about taking out a subscription to ‘Boys International’ and not feeling he had to hide it (p. 7).
Issue No. 8. No date given.
The cover featured a picture of a boy with something like a coke bottle, in swimming trunks.
In the last issue of MAGPIE one of our readers asked us to reprint the information given in the Spartacus Holiday Guide for Paedophiles, and this we agreed to do.
However, in the light of what we now know about Spartacus, we have reluctantly decided that it would not be helpful to our members and readers for us to do such a reprint, the information given being at best superficial and at worst inaccurate.’ (p. 2)
Tom O’Carroll, Review of film The Bad News Bears, dir. Michael Ritchie (1976) (p. 2)
‘There I was, at prime time, a mid-evening performance in the opening west end week, and the place was deserted except for a few scattered Paedophiles (don’t ask me how I know!) who wanted to see how much Tatum had grown up since !”Paper Moon” and to have a good ogle (and what’s wrong with that?) at the baby Bears of the little league baseball team.’
‘For me, the star performer wasn’t Matthau or O’Neal, although Tatum still looks pre-bra enough to be physically interesting. No, the palm must go to a little guy whose name I can’t remember – He is supposed to be a symbolic non-entity in the film, so I guess that fits – who was not only a lousy player at the start of the story, but he stayed that way. He was always the one left on the bench, the substitute, the nothing guy. When the other kids picked on him he hadn’t the guts to fight back, and the most ambition his feeble spirit could muster was the thought of being associated with the winning team’
A letter from a Charles Gerrivoenski (of whom more in a later issue) praised Frits Bernard’s article, and talked about warning a 12-year old boy not to tell his parents about their sexual relationship, mentioning a ‘clash of loyalty’.
‘Read All About It’, p. 3.
Mentioning articles in Guardian, 12/9/77 (half page article based on interview with Keith Hose), Community Care, 28/9/77 (“PIE is not getting a fair hearing”), 12/10/77 (reader’s letter), 19/10/77 (four pages on PIE and its aim, based on interview with Tom), new Society 8/9/77 (Marginal Note on PIE’s attempts to hold an open meeting), 6/10/77, “TV parents” – about children’s TV preferences; Peace news 23/9/77 (PIE in the sky – a report of NUSS support of PIE); Time Out 9/9/77 (“Untouchable subject” – on PIE and its aims); The Sun 10/9/77 (“Priest in Sex Row Hits Back”); Spectator 1/10/77 (“Suffer the little children”), Medical News 21/9/77 (Article by Eric Trimmer based on findings and fumings at Swansea Conference)
Quote from the end of the last:
‘Up in the Press room at the university on the day I met a very charming and lively little boy who was passing his time making paper aeroplanes out of abstracts of delegates papers. I asked his father, one of the Department of Psychology, if he was hiding him up there in case Tom O’Carroll was about. “Good God no Man” he replied in an accent straight out of Milk Wood, “he’s such a little horror at home I’m hoping they do meet up. Might cure both of them”. (p. 3)
Article by Member 136, ‘As I see it…’, p. 4:
Talks about members being adherents of the Kid’s Lib.
‘I believe P.I.E. would be better employed in devoting its major efforts to radically reducing the penalties imposed on Paedophiles and also to reducing to a minimum the distress inflicted on the child in the case by seeking to change the investigative and court procedures. [….]
Recent articles in Magpie have suggested that contributors are vaguely but grudgingly aware of the existence of parents but would prefer to dismiss their right to any claim upon their children. I think this is a stupid view to take and one that does our case no good. Perhaps this article will re-dress the balance a little and perhaps give rise to some constructive controversy.’ (p. 4)
Michael Ingram, ‘Laws of Consent’, pp. 5-6
This proposed equalising homo- and hetero-sexual ages of consent. ‘In the discussion which follows you might like to express your opinions as to whether 16 is the best age.’ (p. 5)
The duty of the law to protect the simple from exploitation, so Ingram suggested that the age of consent might be flexible, ‘and that parents who feel that their daughter under the age of, say, 18 is being exploited should be able to invoke the law by some means to prevent it.’
Laws should apply equally to men and women.
Either laws should apply to children, and contraceptive information only be given to parents, and doctors forbidden to prescribe pill to under-age girls, or laws should not apply at all to under-age children.
‘It might be possible to devise a system whereby the consent laws become more flexible, and prohibit intercourse, or sexual activity between persons who [sic] age difference is greater than two or three years when one of them is below the given age of consent.’ (all p. 5)
An article by Keith Spence, ‘Reflections in a square eye’, p. 8, portrayed paedophiles somehow transgressing social norms, talking about:
‘the fundamental honesty of Paedophile relationships, which can find their natural course without constantly needing to conform to an established stereotype.
So – let conventional people hide behind their rules and standards. Keep your images. I’m happier without a reflection, thanks. Anyone know of a nice, succulent jugular?’
P. 9 feature a picture of a young boy, maybe about 4-5.
On pp. 10-11, there was the first of what would become a regular crossword, with all clues to do with paedophilia. Here are some examples of the clues:
Across clues 20. ‘How your boy must have felt when his dad found out his first letter traded south. (3).
24. The older boy’s penis may be, but still he yearns! (6)
38. Gay little Leslie sings both ways, to a point! (7)
47. Morocco would be no place for a boy-lover who suffers from it! (10)
Down clues, p. 11
E.g. 4. Balls to the doctor! All boys have them set up twice. (6)
12. Sounds like the boy to sustain morally, but you can’t make love to this one! (4)
37. An Irish kid who is apt to get screwed up. (3)
A map on the back showed 9 branches in Australia and one in New Zealand.
Later issues featured even more disturbing material – I will post this tomorrow.