PIE – Documentary Evidence 7 – Steven Adrian Smith’s History of the Movement

Various people looking into the Paedophile Information Exchange have mentioned the volume Warren Middleton (ed), The Betrayal of Youth: Radical Perspectives on Childhood Sexuality, Intergenerational Sex, and the Social Oppression of Children and Young People (London: CL Publications, 1986). This book contained a wide range of articles mostly from a pro-paedophilia point of view either by PIE members or sympathisers; the fact that Peter Tatchell contributed a chapter has been the subject of various controversy (to which I will return in a later post). The following constitute the contents of the volume (see here for a selection of pages including more details on contributors):

Part One: Five Controversial Areas
Clive Coliman, ‘Incest’
Richard Green, ‘Child Pornography and Erotica’
Warren Middleton, ‘Child Prostitution’
Liz Holton and Kathy Challis, ‘Gender Differences’
Eric Presland, ‘Power and Consent’

Part Two: Miscellaneous Chapters
Tuppy Owens and Tom O’Carroll, ‘Love and Let Love’
Michael Ingram, ‘Children and Sex: A Child Counsellor’s View’
Beatrice Faust, ‘The Pedophiles’
Peter Tatchell, ‘Questioning Ages of Majority and Ages of Consent’
Roger Moody, ‘Ends and Means: How to Make Pedophilia Acceptable…?’
John Lindsay, ‘Socialism, Class, and Children’s Rights’

Part Three: Protection or Oppression?
Warren Middleton, ‘Childhood Sexuality and Pedophilia: Some Questions Answered’

Part Four: How Youth See the Issues
Jeff Vernon, ‘The Oppression of the Young: An Inside Perspective’

Appendices
Appendix 1: Steven A. Smith, ‘PIE, from 1980 Until its Demise in 1985’
Appendix 2: Timothy d’Arch Smith, ‘The Uranians’

The first of these two appendices is informative as an insider’s history of PIE. As with all writings by PIE members themselves, this should be read sceptically, aware of how much might have been omitted or distorted in the interests of the author or other members. My earlier post on PIE and the Home Office clarifies how Smith (also known as Steven Freeman) essentially ran the organisation from the Home Office itself. He fled the country for the Netherlands soon after writing this article, as detailed below, and was eventually jailed in 1991, and then more recently was given an indeterminate sentence in 2011 after being convicted of producing drawings of children being raped (‘Ex-paedophile group leader Freeman jailed over child rape drawings’, BBC News, July 15th, 2011). Nonetheless, there is clearly lots of important information to dissect in this chapter which I reproduce complete, without comment, below.

Appendix 1
Steven A. Smith, ‘PIE: From 1980 until its Demise in 1985’, pp. 215-245

The name of PIE has cropped up several times in this collection. Since the group had, in its time, been so thoroughly misunderstood and misrepresented, it was deemed only fair to allow Steve Smith, its last chairperson, an opportunity to redress the balance. Accordingly, he now takes up the story from where Tom O’Carroll left off. –ed.

Questions of Priority

It seemed to me, when I succeeded O’Carroll as chairperson in 1979, that the most sensible order of business for PIE was firstly to regulate its internal affairs (MAGPIE [1] was appearing very erratically – partly my own fault – and members were receiving nothing else of value from the group); secondly to begin an energetic recruitment drive to replenish our depleted executive committee; thirdly to formulate collectively a coherent body of policies on key issues; and fourthly to tackle our campaigning objectives as a group, rather than as one or two individuals speaking on behalf of the group. More than simply addressing an occasional CHE branch, student gaysoc or academic conference, what I wanted to see was PIE producing a manifesto on video for the widest possible circulation (as GYM had done), or trying for ‘community access’ slots on TV and local radio, or producing posters and broadsheets aimed at the public rather than potential members, or even working in concert with the NUSS (the now-defunct National Union of School Students) to redress the steady flow of anti-paedophile propaganda which the police were imparting to schools all over the UK.

PIE had always felt a sense of kinship (not often reciprocated) with the gay movement, and a firm commitment towards autonomous youth liberation (children’s rights), but I wanted to see develop a far closer interaction – on practical as well as philosophical levels – between PIE and the various paedophile groups in Europe and the States. I felt we should lend considerable effort to the formation of an international alliance along similar lines to the International Gay Association (this was before we discovered how bureaucratic the IGA was in practice). Lastly, with the abandonment of PIE’s Contact Page under the menace of further prosecutions, the EC felt very keenly that members still needed something from PIE in the way of social support; something beyond the ad hoc counselling which many committee members undertook on a one-to-one basis. If British law prevented paedophiles from writing directly to one another through a simple small ad service, then some alternative had to be found which would abrogate the profound isolation which had driven them to the desperate resort of joining PIE in the first place. We began to look afresh at the establishment of local groups, which PIE had attempted in earlier years without much success.

In the event, PIE failed to draw onto its committee the kind of radicalised, hard-working people that were needed, and not one of the above objectives was realised. Year by year, PIE had sunk deeper into a state of collective torpor, grimly determined to survive, if only in catatonic immobility. So, we failed to attract into PIE useful paedophiles who were commited [sic] both to political action and to the development of a mutual support framework – this was due in part to PIE’s consummately negative image in all quarters (the radical leader was quite as easily duped by the press stories about us as anyone else, judging from the strange impressions of PIE that had reached our ears), but due also to obstruction and non co-operation wherever we sought wider publicity for the group’s address. Many gay and alternative journals must share the blame for PIE’s then continued parlous, debilitated condition. I’m convinced there are still many thousands of paedophiles in the UK alone who are ignorant of PIE having ever existed, and I know for certain there are many others who saw the various ‘exposés’ and shock reports about us, but were thwarted in their efforts to find us.


Perspectives on Pearl Harbour

A former treasurer, on resigning from the EC, put it to me (though not quite in these terms) that PIE’s reputation across the board had become so desperately negative that the groups’ mere existence could only harm the paedophile cause, whatever we tried to do about it. We were a pariah among alternative movements, evil incarnate to society at large, and by continuing to exist so doggedly in the face of all opprobrium, PIE was doing for British paedophiles what AIDS was doing for the gay community. A harsh judgement, I feel. If AIDS had not existed the Moral Majority would’ve had to invent it. If PIE had not existed, it would have been necessary for the NEWS OF THE WORLD to invent us. And in one sense it’s true to say that the gutter press did invent PIE – or at least, the image of PIE which had been in general coinage since 1977; that of a secretive international ‘cult’, probably with underworld connections, certainly with influence in ‘high quarters’; a porn-producing syndicate of callous men intent upon nothing but their own sexual gratification. But if PIE’s early strategy had been different, how different would its public image have been?

Several times the idea of folding PIE and replacing it with a new paedophile grouping was mooted on committee, but we’d never have successfully jettisoned PIE’s reputation by the simple expedient of a name-change, and even a substantially different alignment would not for long have escaped the vitriolic attention PIE had enjoyed. This rose by any other name would have smelled no sweeter. There was nothing endemic in PIE itself which another broad-based group could have avoided and thus somehow bridged the ‘credibility gap’. NAMBLA in the US, for example, has placed its emphasis exclusively on gay paederasty (men attracted to teenage boys and youths), thus neatly sidestepping the two most controversial planks of PIE’s platform – heterosexual and pre-teen paedophile relationships. Notwithstanding this, NAMBLA has been attacked, boycotted and obstructed every bit as much as PIE had been by the media, women’s groups, sections of the gay scene, and has come in for just the same intimidation and harassment from the authorities. So much for tactical compromise. PIE’s trajectory into the public eye in 1977 can be compared to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour, after which Admiral Yamamoto observed: “I fear that all we have done is to waken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve”. Doubtless, many paedophiles wish we’d let this particular giant sleep on, but neither they nor children can be liberated from his tyranny without at least waking him in the process.

The conflicting demands of our campaigning and befriending objectives from the start presented a fundamental dichotomy in PIE. What for years we viewed as one of PIE’s greatest strengths may in truth have been its greatest weakness, or at least its greatest liability; our acceptance into the group and onto its Executive Committee of paedophiles, whatever their attitudes, abilities or political persuasion (with the exception of the far Right, of course). By straining to be all things to all paedophiles I doubt that we fully satisfied any, and we certainly alienated a few. There is a very powerful argument which runs thus: that the accommodation of a passive, inert membership consumes so much of the energies of a small group’s activist core that the raison d’être of the group is lost in a sea of ‘club-shit’. In other words, committee devoted so much of its time and attention to the routine of organisation and providing reading material and other services for consumption by the Moloch that vital campaigning work was neglected. After six years hard labour on the PIE committee I can only say that this was absolutely true.

Probably the only way ahead for paedophilia in the UK will be the emergence of two distinct groupings – though working in concert – attending to these differing needs. I for one did not wish to see the majority of paedophiles abandoned while the few activists diverted their attentions elsewhere, as some would have had us do, but equally I recognised that our political momentum had been retarded by a plague of part-time paedophiles – those who wanted to know what was going on without getting involved any deeper; who wanted to see changes made but not to help bring them about. PIE’s committee did not comprise many true activists anyway – it never did – so it alone did not have the capacity to diverge, and the very few paedophile activists who could be identified outside the group showed no interest in helping the metamorphosis come about.

Perhaps PIE’s mistake was in tackling non-paedophile prejudice in the first place? Perhaps instead we should have operated under the most stringent security precautions as a kind of Masonic network through which paedophiles might have contacted one another in safety? I’ve heard this view from outsiders. I don’t think that locking oneself in the closet would have been a terribly progressive move; by its nature such a network would have benefited only a tiny minority of those ‘in the know’, and the outside world would have been vindicated in its suspicions about us if we had behaved so furtively and were so indifferent to public opinion and the political imperative of children’s liberation.

The most bizarre misconception about PIE was held by a guy who later joined the committee for a short while – Lee Edwards. He’d visualised PIE being as affluent and neatly-organised as the Mormon Church, with smoked glass offices in the City of London and a full-time secretariat. He was, let’s say, a shade disillusioned by the reality. PIE did actually have an office in Westminster only a smirk away from the desk of the Home Secretary, but more of that later. The group’s silence in recent years had done nothing to dispel the illusions of people – friend and foe – about us, but then Pie itself had been undergoing an identity crisis of sorts, uncertain about which direction it should be taking. But one thing is quite certain – if we were none of the things people expected us to be, we were certainly none of the things the press had claimed us to be in their haste to deceive the British public.


Loaves and Fishes

I found PIE in 1978 entirely by accident through a classified ad in TIME OUT magazine. Many others came to us through a regular listing in GAY NEWS. However, both sources of new blood had been closed off long before the trial. [3] Occasionally, we would discover a listing in some unexpected place, inevitably giving an old address, but in general PIE was unable to get a listing in any gay or alternative paper in the UK. After the trial we attempted to retrieve this situation by a general approach to dozens of such papers here or abroad, asking for either free listings or concessionary advertising rates. A special appeal was made to the membership for donations to fund this advertising drive. MANCUNIAN GAY was the only paper in the UK willing to help us. Abroad, our ad was accepted without qualm by THE BODY POLITIC (Toronto) and GAY COMMUNITY NEWS (Boston) – both excellent gay papers whose unequivocally supportive stance on paedophilia put the faint-hearted GAY NEWS to shame – also by REVOLT (Sweden), CSC NUSLETER (California) and several others. But where we needed members most of all, where members were potentially of most value to the group, here in the UK, the drive got us nowhere. TIME OUT kept our hopes up for several months with repeated promises of a listing, but finally backed out with the feeble excuse that, as PIE wasn’t strictly a gay group, it was inappropriate to include us in a gay listings column. The only option left to us – a rather desperate one – was to litter PIE’s address around the streets by means of a sticker campaign, and this is what we did.

The sticker featured the silhouette of a standing child embracing a seated adult encircled by our name and address. We decided on this low-key format, foregoing bold and provocative slogans, as the object was simply to attract new members, not to outrage every parent that saw them. Even so, we were politely requested by one (prospective) London MP to desist planting them in his constituency (they had been discovered rather close to schools, you know!). Well, the campaign brought us just a handful of new people – too few members had been planting the stickers on a regular basis for fear of being caught red-handed and beaten up; those that were planted were being far too eagerly torn down; and worst of all one committee member made the terrible gaffe of not renewing the postal address on the sticker, so that later mail was never redirected to us at all. Perhaps the act of planting stickers, like writing political graffiti, is little more than a satisfying gesture of defiance for the individual, but I think we made a mistake in not concentrating our efforts on a far smaller area – probably London itself – and perhaps, if there had been a next time, we should have gone for those bold, provocative slogans.

There were a number of projects in various stages of completion during this period – none of which had any significance to non-paedophiles. The PIE Press Service was revived, making available once more all PIE’s early material (UNDERSTANDING PAEDOPHILIA and CHILDHOOD RIGHTS, for example) together with items like Tom’s book PAEDOPHILA: THE RADICAL CASE, [4] which PIE subsidised to its members; the early US boylove magazine BETTER LIFE; and the celebrated BODY POLITIC article ‘Men Loving Boys Loving Men’ [5] (which has been subjected to not one, but two trials of its own). We owe thanks to Julian Meldrum of the Hall Carpenter Archives for supplying us with much early PIE material. So many important documents were lost whenever Scotland Yard descended on the homes of committee members that arrangements were made with the Brongersma and Bernard Foundations in Holland to deposit copies with them for safe keeping.

A reading list of paedophile fiction was added to the press service, complied by Lewis Grey, David Joy and Leo Adamson, and later a non-fiction list condensed by Tom O’Carroll from the copious bibliography of his book. Work was also begun on a film guide and on a survival guide for paedophiles in the UK.

A growing number of our members were captives in US prisons. Coping with the special needs of these people prompted us to set up a prisoner support scheme which, under Peter Bremner and later Tony Zalewski, found correspondents for these prisoners and sought sponsors to cover the expenses of their membership, mailing them recommended books and items from the press service. It hardly needs saying that our attempts to operate the scheme with inmates of British prisons were scotched by this country’s Draconian censorship restrictions. Mail from US prisoners often carried an apologetic stamp on the envelope which read: “Prisoners’ mail uncensored. Not responsible for contents.” I look forward to the day when British prisons need to be so apologetic – I had a long and fractious correspondence with the governor of Wormwood Scrubs over the confiscation of several letters of mine and other items sent to Tom O’Carroll. As with all things in the US, prison regulations vary wildly from state to state, so while some members were receiving regular visits from the boys for whose ‘protection’ they had been imprisoned, others were not even permitted to receive MAGPIE. NAMBLA was far better placed than we were to defend the interests of these people, and is now doing so. PIE was powerless to help prisoners in the UK without some referral arrangement with the social services, and the Home Office lifting restrictions on visits and correspondence.

Given the monstrous treatment of many paedophiles in prison, and the squalid, dehumanising conditions that prevail throughout the prison system, it is a marvel to me that people can emerge from this ordeal without a deep and burning animosity towards the society that abused them so. Imprisonment is the grossest indecency.

If there was one venture that I expected to be an unqualified success and firmly supported by the membership, it was the re-establishment of social meetings through local group organisers. This was the sort of freedom which other oppressed groups – blacks, gay men and women, and many more – took entirely for granted. Any attempt by PIE to arrange social venues (this applied equally to workshops, AGM’s, marches and demonstrations of any kind) carried with it the implicit danger of press harassment, police observation, and physical attack from fanatics of every species. Accordingly, such precautions had to be taken to insulate these meetings from the hostile gaze that the people who had most need of them – frightened, solitary people with zero political awareness – were the last to be invited to them. Where possible, committee members attempted to meet new people in order to establish their bona fides, but there was always a substantial part of the membership who could not be directly vouched for, and we knew there was an agent of the NEWS OF THE WORLD among them.

Having an EC member in Birmingham, the first step was to organise meetings in this area for members in the midlands. Several meetings took place, but then the host was arrested and sent to remand prison on an unconnected charge, and interest petered out. With my help, an Australian member attempted to generate support for a PIE branch in his country (we had more members in Australia than in Scotland and Wales together), but the majority of those approached preferred to keep the breadth of the globe between them and the kind of flak which PIE attracted. This was not too surprising when one learnt that an earlier bid to establish an independent Australian paedophile group – SYBOL – crashed when a conservative gay group threatened to hand the organisers’ names and addresses to the police. Plans for a Canadian branch of PIE went awry also, but happily NAMBLA was able to establish a chapter there soon after.

Our greatest concentration of members had always been in London and the home counties. All but a handful of PIE’s workers through the years had lived there. From August ’82 we booked a private room one night a week in a series of West end pubs, inviting along all members who were known to us. The average attendance was very disappointing: always the same few faces. Presumably, everyone feared that a press plant would be present, as had in fact happened once before in 1979: A known freelance operating for the NOTW, had turned up half drunk at one pub meeting and begun asking those present to procure boys for him. “I know there are kids around who’ll go with you for money,” he said, “but where are they? Why don’t we do something instead of just sitting here?” No such investigative journalist graced any of the more recent meetings. TIME OUT reporter, John Gill, came along once or twice, but he was there at our invitation, preparing a feature on the anxieties and expectations of paedophiles living in London (a feature subsequently suppressed by the magazine’s editors). Other guests present at those meetings included many GYM members and one or two representatives from CHE – one of them a woman who was entirely supportive. Discussions with these people were on the whole constructive and stimulating, and made the meetings worthwhile for us on the EC, but the objective of a social forum for members outside the committee was never realised.


Babel Wasn’t Built in a Day

In August 1980 PIE circulated an open letter among every known paedophile group in Europe, Scandinavia and North America, and also to prominent individuals such as Dr. Edward Brongersma, Dr. Frits Bernard, Drs. Theo Sandfort, and Valida Davila of CSC (Childhood Sensuality Circle). The letter outlined an ambitious, some would say grandiose, proposal for a new transnational paedophile federation through which member groups would collaborate on material projects and share resources at the same time as working towards a common philosophical platform. As I wrote in MAGPIE 15, “Much more than a simple mutual aid society, such a federation would be the consolidation of a coherent international paedophile and children’s liberation movement out of the present chaos of tiny national groups working largely oblivious of one another”. This initiative was very much a personal commitment of my own – my committee colleagues were not all so inspired by this euro-vision. I had learned through PIE that there were groups in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, Portugal, Belgium, yet we knew virtually nothing about these people and their organisations, what they were doing in their own countries, or how their political analyses differed from that of PIE. Any contact we had established had been of a token kind, genuine in spirit but superficial in practice, so it was safe to assume that these groups were in the same state of ignorance about us. It seemed important to me that a full and penetrating dialogue be established at least with the strongest of them.

Inevitably, there were language obstacles. We mustered a few members to translate from French, German and Dutch for us, but although our files were brimming with magazines from these groups we could hardly ask people to translate whole magazines, and in any case one could not always rely on forming an accurate view of a group’s thinking merely by reading its general literature. (There had been no language barrier for Tom O’Carroll when he represented PIE at an Oslo conference ‘Amnesty for Love and affection’ hosted by the Norwegian group, NAFP, in 1979. There had even been discussions there on forming a new, broad-based international group called ‘Amnesty for Child Sexuality’, but nothing had come of this.)

The Open letter included a proposal for an early ‘summit’ conference of interested groups to discuss the general concept of an IGA-type alliance, and areas of practical collaboration between us. The most enthusiastic responses we received came from people and groups who had least to gain from the proposed alliance: “I am in complete agreement with your plans,” wrote Valida Davila; “Some people are ruined by oppression and persecution, and others are fired to fight back. I see your committee has chosen the latter road.” “We think the idea of an international association for paedophiles excellent,” wrote REVOLT of Sweden; “If there is anything we can do to support, never hesitate to ask.” Pasteur J. Doucé of the Centre du Christ Libérateur, Paris, wrote: “If I can be of any help in the formation of an international paedophile fellowship please let me know.” An anarchist commune for young people in Nuremberg, the Indianner, said that although they had deep reservations about the German group, DSAP, they still wished to “join a basic form” with us.

The groups themselves were not prepared to take a lead. They wanted to see PIE set up the conference itself. What better demonstration of the poor grasp our friends had on the political realities for PIE? We were possibly the only group among them which was unable to hold a general meeting for its own members without grave risk of injury to those attending, and prosecution of the organisers. After the events of 1977 for PIE, did anyone seriously expect an international paedophile conference to be permitted in the UK? NAMBLA chose to “wait and see what leadership develops on these concepts”. The paedophile wing of the Dutch civil rights umbrella organisation, NVSH, felt that their priorities should be domestic, and that international co-ordination should be left to the auspices of the IGA itself. NAFP in Norway “sympathised” but wanted “more concrete ideas”. [6]

The first months of the following year saw the emergence in France of a new paedophile organisation – the Groupe de recherché pour une Enfance Différente – and four of us from PIE sped along to its inaugural congress in November. Also present on that occasion were David Thorstad representing NAMBLA, Frits Bernard representing DSAP, and a member of the Belgian Paedophile Studygroup [sic]. The atmosphere at that opening day was something I had not experienced before even at PIE’s 1978 AGM – an intensity, an electric urgency of expression that welled as much from the floor as from the platform. The strength of the GRED committee was plain to see, as one after another they all addressed the meeting with equal vigour and self-assurance, and everyone it that packed hall (including, to our delight, a handful of women paedophiles) was involved, not quietly receiving the transmitted wisdoms of the committee. With the promise of an imminent reduction in France’s homosexual ‘age of consent’ from eighteen to fifteen, the liberation of children was for these people far from a remote utopian objective.

I came away from that conference profoundly frustrated, both with the inadequacy of PIE and my own inadequate French. I went to listen, but came away having understood little that I’d heard. I went to contribute my views, but came away without having said a word. I went to take part, but was obliged merely to observe. It’s not entirely unreasonable, of course, that a French group meeting in France should conduct its meeting in French, but I had rather hoped that, at least in the workshop on international collaboration, some concession would be made to a humble Anglophone like myself. Unfortunately, GRED’s English was only a little better than my French. One might think such a lesson in futility would have made me reconsider the practicality of collaboration on the level suggested by the Open Letter but, on the contrary, I felt all the more keenly how much we had to gain from a close dialogue and mutual co-operation with people such as GRED. If we left them with a rather poor understanding of PIE and what we had to deal with over here, that was entirely our own fault, of course, but even among the extrovert committee of GRED, and in its journal, PETIT GREDIN, there was a hint of the same parochialism displayed by the NVSH paedophiles and others, confining their analysis of the problems and solutions within national boundaries. Perhaps PIE was unique in this respect – that more than half our membership lived abroad, scattered among twenty or so countries, and it was plain to us that the ignorance and intolerance of paedophilia knew no frontiers, as with the inhibitory myths of childhood. While the police and the agents of ‘moral’ conformity were concerting their efforts internationally against us, would we not even collaborate in our own defence, if for no better motive?

Another item under preparation for the PIE Press Service at that time was a comprehensive directory of paedophile/children’s liberation groups – the first such guide ever to be published in the English language, filling in a little detail to that cold, unwelcoming expanse of acronyms: SAP, DAP, DSAP, PAC, AKP and so on. Questionnaires were distributed hot on the heels of the Open Letter, and the information that came back immediately helped to dissipate our own ignorance a little. We discovered, inevitably, that some of the groups had already collapsed. In Germany, for example, the Deutsche Studie und Arbeitsgemeinschaft Pädofilie had disintegrated over an ideological clash between anarchists, conservative reformists, and revolutionary socialists – notably about the nature and extent of freedom it wished to seek for young people. Blackmail threats had come into play here too, as with SYBOL in Australia, but this time one paedophile against another, to the utter damnation of those that made them. NAFP in Norway also, sadly, dissolved. And for each group that vanished another would suddenly appear elsewhere on the map – Stiekum in Belgium, for instance.

At the GRED conference it was agreed that the groups represented there would all follow NAMBLA’s example in joining the IGA itself and through it lobbying the gay movement directly for firmer support. The extent of our links with the gay political scene was an essential aspect of PIE’s strategy (insofar as PIE had such a thing) which I want to consider separately but, in the absence of a constructive dialogue with gays (or anyone else) in our own country about the radical means to accomplish our short and long term objectives, other paedophile groups abroad remained the only people from whom alternative strategies could be learned, our own analysis refined, different perspectives examined. Practical alteration to the law and its institutions is an objective necessarily specific to one’s own country, but awakening a whole culture to the living realities of sexuality and of youth is the promulgation of an idea, a new system of living, and is not confined to the arbitrary frontiers of states.


Prodigal Son? _ Or A Cuckoo in the Nest?

1983 was the first time in PIE’s nine-year history that a handful of members carried a PIE banner at the London Gay Pride march. The banner read simply: ‘Adults Loving Children loving Adults’ – a bisexual extension of the famous BODY POLITIC caption. This bold initiative was largely due to the efforts of one EC member, Leo Adamson, who, in a very short time of involvement in PIE, had propelled the group a deal closer to the gay movement than it had been for a considerable while. As a member of GYM (Gay Youth movement), Leo was able to speak for PIE at their annual conference ‘Gym’ll Fix It’, and he also took an active role in the group’s lobby of Parliament. In July ’83 he represented PIE at the IGA conference in Vienna. One could say that PIE had waited a long time for individuals with Leo’s stamina and conviction to come along and fulfil this vital liaison role.

Eric Presland, writing in CAPITAL GAY, [7] rejoiced in the appearance of PIE’s banner at the Gay Pride march, and bade us a hearty ‘Welcome back!’ While there was no doubting the sincerity of Presland’s support for PIE, nor his personal commitment to the liberation of children, there was an assumption behind his remarks that PIE had somehow drifted away from the gay movement in recent years, had now seen the error of its ways and returned – like the prodigal son – to its spiritual home. But it was not PIE that moved away from the gay movement in the UK, it was the gay movement that moved hastily away from us once the muck began to fly; and not because it viewed PIE as too reformist, sexist or reactionary – these tags were slapped on us much later – not because our proposals were insufficiently radical; they were too radical by half for the majority of gays. If we had concentrated, as NAMBLA had done in the US, simply upon sexual relationships between men and teenage boys, gays might have been rather more sanguine about solidarity with us. We were not prepared to barter away the interests of so many paedophiles and of pre-teenage children to realise that support.

If anything, the political leaning of the EC had become further to the Left than ever before, though unfortunately there was no output from PIE to attest to this. Committee may have been radical in its sympathies, but was singularly reticent to express this thinking through MAGPIE or CONTACT. [8] Repeatedly it was put to them that committee should buckle down and talk through some coherent policy positions on key questions – I prepared a discussion paper on pornography to set this process going – but there was no enthusiasm at all for the hard graft of policymaking. Little wonder then that Pie was seen as complacent and insular when it could not produce a single political position or line of analysis to promote wider debate. Those people who troubled to look for evidence of PIE’s philosophy or political credentials were left to glean what they might from the tone and content of MAGPIE, or from documents published years ago by a very different EC – the ‘Questions & Answers’ booklet [9] and our ‘Evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee’. [10] I don’t think there was anyone active in PIE at this time who was happy with the proposals contained in the ‘Evidence’ paper; many would have liked to see them publicly rescinded. All in all, if gays regarded PIE with some suspicion as being an unknown political quantity we had no-one but ourselves to blame for that.

“I don’t think the time is yet read,” wrote an editor of REVOLT in answer to our Open Letter, “for a great association that would support both gays and paedophiles. There are still too many prejudices in the various camps, and paedophile liberation has some very specific aspects which certainly would be overlooked (or neglected) in a general gay association.” I entirely agree with that view. Whereas those paedophile groups that had sprung initially from the gay movement (PIE, NAMBLA, GRED) had tended to survive without the umbilical intact, those which tried to submerge back into the gay movement, becoming just one of several special interest groups within it, (NAFP for example) expired in the process. It is manifestly obvious that the struggles and obstacles faced by paedophiles in the UK today, and indeed the major arguments marshalled against us, bear a striking resemblance to those which gays themselves were confronted with a scant few decades ago. Many of the tasks that face us are the same – combatting the monolithic heterosexuality of ‘educational’ propaganda, for one – and there is great scope here for joint action, but our demands of society are far from being identical, and nor are they at the same stage of accomplishment.

To pluck a metaphor from the mouths of our critics, in any relationship between paedophiles and gays, it is gays who are demonstrably the stronger partner, far greater in size and power, their social status much higher. In contrast, paedophiles are weak, vulnerable, and – as a political force – lacking in experience, our status just about the lowest there is. Can true equality ever be realised in such a relationship? Will gays not simply abuse their power advantage to silence or control paedophiles? Does the gay movement really care about the needs and aspirations of its younger protégé?

Well, you may be sure that PIE did not endorse that kind of negativistic approach. The assumption that the strong will tend inevitably to exploit the weak is true of fascists, not of sexual groupings. I believe that the gay movement in the UK neglected PIE’s struggle to establish a discrete paedophile consciousness, as it has largely neglected the predicament of gay people younger than sixteen or seventeen. From its position of comparitive [sic] strength it had much to offer us by way of philosophical analysis as well as options for positive action. Instead, we found ourselves forced consistently onto the defensive, perpetually having to justify our very sexuality, to avouch our responsibility as caring people. We were nothing beyond a coffee-table controversy to most gays, and our demands for acceptance and support were given barely more credence here than that which society gives to demands for gay equality. I’m afraid the movement itself has much to answer for the continuing misery and frustration gay children in this country are compelled to endure.

It was a measure neither of PIE’s ineptitude, nor of the political vacuousness of British paedophiles, that so few radical activists materialised among us. It was rather too facile to apply to us the logic of gay and feminist activism, as though the realities were no different for a paedophile coming out in a militant way. Every risk that a gay or lesbian accepts in entering a career of sexual politics, on whatever level, is multiplied many times for a paedophile doing likewise. It is a simple equation of greater risks equalling fewer volunteers. Beyond this rather elementary observation, it is in the nature of paedophilia that the greater number of us will channel their whole energies into working with and for children (however misguidedly), whether this be as youth workers, teachers, nurses or, yes, as scoutleaders. Individuals who would have been of immense value to a group such as PIE either never contemplated joining because their attention was squarely focussed on working with the young, or shied away from deeper commitment for fear the publicity would disable them from continuing such work. True, many of these people themselves inadvertently abet the social conditioning of youth, but they are sincere in the belief that their work is beneficial and constructive. The essential point is that a paedophile’s natural first loyalty is to children – not to other paedophiles.

Unlike gays and feminists, who seek the company of people like themselves for social and sexual reasons, and then develop a political consciousness within that society, drawing strength from their community for ‘coming out’ and embarking on political work, paedophiles do not tend to gravitate so readily into one another’s company, (those that would have no means of doing so, of course) and the breeding medium for radicalisation is so much less fertile for this often-overlooked reason. In the company of a thirteen year old boy one can learn a good deal about the realities of powerlessness and dependence and the frustration of being thirteen in this society – all the more so from a girl – but this is a long way from assimilating a commitment to political struggle. The younger the children a paedophile seeks for company, the more this argument applies.

Thanks in large part to PIE, some paedophiles did befriend one another, but all too often in such meetings the differences of perspective were more apparent than the congruences. There was a commonality of interest without a commonality of awareness. Therefore among paedophiles this consciousness has to be cultivated in an altogether more deliberate and artificial way. Those paedophiles who regard themselves (sometimes mistakenly) as the most revolutionary are generally those that move largely in gay circles. Undoubtedly, coming out as a paedophile via the gay movement increases one’s exposure to radical though – though anyone acquainted with CHE might laugh at this – but it may also leave one with a smug and false sense of security.

While my own sexual tastes extend to eighteen or nineteen year old guys, I confess I never had much inclination to join a gay group or frequent any gay clubs. I think my perspective might have been rather less parochial if I had, but this is to illustrate that there are many paedophiles like myself who wish to work in close harmony with gay society, not to join it. To those who say, “So why didn’t PIE make more effort towards a rapprochement with radical gay groups?” I reply, “Why didn’t the stronger, more numerous, and better-equipped gay groups approach PIE with advice, criticism, active support, even when we were reeling in the wake of an Old Bailey trial?” Why should we have had to make all the running? Let me cite one or two instances of the positive vibrations PIE was receiving from the mighty ‘λ’.

At the 2nd annual conference of the IGA (Barcelona, 1980), the only group to abstain from a general motion calling on member organisations to support paedophile groups more vigorously was Britain’s CHE, who insisted on their exception being noted for the record. At GYM’s 1982 lobby of Parliament (which only twelve of some four hundred MPs felt obliged to attend), it was a vice-president of CHE, Martin Stevens, MP (Conservative, needless to say), who favoured the retention of the homosexual age of consent at twenty-one (for males), whilst others present were quite willing to negotiate an initial reduction to eighteen. Stevens’ rationale – if we may dignify it by that term – was that if homosexual behaviour was legally sanctioned among teenagers, “teenagers might in later years regret their youthful flings”. Similarly, at the IGA’s 1983 Vienna conference, it was Michael Brown of Britain’s Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality who supplied the most stentorian opposition to every paedophile motion put before the conference. In this case, where one of the motions called upon PIE to urge all other paedophile groups to affiliate as we had done, Brown was joined by Denmark’s F48, Norway’s DNF48, and Lavender Left of New York, who had apparently determined by explicit resolution to vote against all paedophile-supportive motions. The excellent ‘Gay Youth Charter’ composed by GYM in 1982 was rejected by CHE’s own conference until a reference to paedophilia had been expunged from it. A comparison between GYM’s ‘Gay Youth Charter’ and CHE’s ‘Charter for Gay Rights’, published in the same year, is extraordinary – the one is detailed, uncompromising, bold and lucid; the other bland, timid and cursory.

CHE’s dilemma was summarised by their own Law Reform Committee thus: “CHE has hitherto directed its campaign towards achieving equality under the law relating to heterosexual and homosexual behaviour. The reasons for this, while in large part tactical, are nonetheless important. The argument for equality is much easier to explain to a prejudiced audience and can be forcefully advocated on grounds of simple justice.” It goes on to ask, “Would adopting a position in favour of the abolition of all ages of consent laws risk appearing, in the eyes of the general public, to be so extreme as to make (CHE’s) aims on other issues more difficult to achieve; or has it reached the position where no further significant advance can be made without working – in collaboration with other organisations – for reform of these and the other laws relating to sexual behaviour generally?” [11]

It was the same dilemma which confronted broader civil rights groups like the NCCL (National Council for Civil Liberties) when the rights at issue were those of PIE. Any association with our particular cause threatened to undermine their own political credibility cross the board. PIE was the hottest potato of all, and triggered off all kinds of atavistic terrors in more respectable reformist groups. We were therefore sacrificed on the altar of short-term tactical compromise.

Not to confine this criticism to gay and civil rights groups however the producer of London Weekend Television’s ‘Gay Life’ programme (screened once a week in the late night horror slot) promised me there would be a programme on paedophilia in the second series to which PIE might be allowed to contribute. Alas, there was not. Among the helplines which consistently declined to give PIE’s address to paedophile callers were Icebreakers, London Gay Switchboard, Brighton Gay Switchboard, and Friend. One of these told me their solicitors had advised them that by passing out our address it might be construed that they were acting as agents for the organisations.

The fact that PIE was not exclusively homosexual represented part of the reason for this moratorium. GAY NEWS and TIME OUT both quickly zeroed in on this objection, though as with the ubiquitous power argument, it often serve as a radical justification from the mouth for a decidedly unradical prejudice in the mind. I think it stood to the credit of the PIE EC (whose most active members had always been boylovers) that we did not cave in under such pressure. No heterosexual paedophiles ever stepped forward to defend their own ground, and this made it rather difficult for us to answer the challenges of the gays and feminists with total conviction. Between gays and our heterosexual members the strand of mutual acceptance was very thin indeed (between them and feminists it did not exist at all).

David Thorstad, while still spokesperson of NAMBLA, expressed his own position all too clearly: When Anita Bryant would say that gay men are child molesters, they would say ‘Oh no, we don’t do that; gay people are not molesters, it’s the heterosexual who are the molesters’. I’ve used that argument myself; I believe it’s true.”

Many heterosexual paedophiles are just as ready to swallow society’s stereotype model of gays, their masculinity squirming uncomfortably at the prospect of too close an association with the world of such caricatures. This kind of stupidity is an obstacle we can all do without.

No-one will be astonished to hear that the facet of gay politics in the UK for which PIE felt the closest affinity was gay youth, and that GYM came top of our list of groups to form an alliance with. The first meeting between members of our two committees only reinforced this feeling. As we sat about a table in a London pub, no more than a dozen of us, it was not a bunch of middle class, middle-aged liberal paedophiles confronted with a bunch of radical gay teenagers suspicious of our motives. In fact the majority of both committees were in their mid-twenties. The youngest PIE representative was twenty-one, the oldest GYM representative, twenty-six. Some suspicion was evident on GYM’s part, or rather a wry scepticism about PIE’s political soundness, but it was expressed with candour, not hostility. For our own part, the only major criticism of GYM was its arbitrary self-imposed age limit of twenty-six (a strange paradox in a group whose existence is a reaction against arbitrary age boundaries), in that this tasted a little of ageism in reverse – the idea being that, without an upper age limit, GYM would be taken over by older gays (older than the then committee guiding lights), or that gays would flock to it like moths to a flame in search of teenage boyfriends.

Strategically, so much more can be accomplished under the banner of gay youth than would ever be possible for an overtly paedophile organisation, but that apart, GYM has a freshness and directness which PIE lost long ago. Whereas we talked years back of producing a general information video, GYM have gone and made one. While PIE made ginger overtures to carefully-chosen MPs, GYM staged a general lobby of Parliament. While PIE agonised over whether or not we dared to call another AGM, GYM revels in mass meets.

It is time that gay society in this country woke up to the crucial role it has to play in the foundation of a stable, vigorous and independent paedophile movement which is committed to radical change. What emerges may not be PIE, nor will it be a clone of the gay movement itself, for paedophiles are more than simply gay and straight adults who like their partners particularly young. Ours is a whole different sexuality, our needs and priorities are very different. We are brothers with the gay world, not twins.

PIE in the Face of Fleet Street

Journalism is one of those unsavoury professions – advertising is another – in which an individual’s potential for success is inversely proportional to that person’s scruples. Note that I do not say there are no journalists of conscience or integrity in Fleet Street, only that such people had never been to the fore when the focus of attention was on PIE, or paedophile matters, or rights (in their totality) of people under sixteen, and that such exotic blooms must seem strange indeed in that arid, thorny habitat. Doubtless there remains one detective at Scotland Yard who really believes the police are the servants of the community, and not its warders; or doubtless Thatcher has one Cabinet Minister who genuinely believes in equality of opportunity. These are all, however, statistical freaks. If we find journalism itself to be venal and corrupt – as I believe it is – then this is a profound cause for alarm. As one American commentator observed succinctly, (but glibly), “The news media have become Orwell’s Big Brother of ‘1984’ – all pervasive, all influencing. The freedom of the press is eating away the freedom of the individual”.

Television long ago supplanted religion as the opiate of the working class, and most of the criticisms I make here of the press apply with equal force to the broader media, notably television. There is a disturbing trend towards tabloid-style presentation in TV news programmes, with the same crass, superficial coverage, the same rampant sexism and imperious moral tone, and the same calculated imbalance. Recent reports, for example, of a mother seeking legal compulsion on doctors to inform parents before prescribing contraceptives to girls under sixteen were invariably followed or preceded by progress reports from police investigating the sexual murder of a five year old girl. Such judicious editorial juxtapositions are common. (A contemporary report in a local Harrow paper on similar demands from the ‘Harrow Child and Family Protection group’ appeared on the same front page as an overtly sexist pin-up – of a fifteen year old girl.)

As to the quality of the coverage – in a Central TV news report on the swelling number of teenage runaways in the midlands (‘minors’ voting with their feet?), it was emphasised throughout that the principal fear was not of physical, but ‘moral’ peril; that girls would be “drawn into drink, drugs and prostitution”, and that boys would “fall into the hands of homosexuals”. (TV journalists, like their Fleet Street counterparts, do not care to use the word ‘paedophile’, you may notice.) As always, the people who had most to say on the matter, the people most directly affected, whose anxieties and exasperations had driven them to take off in the first place, were the only people not consulted. It might have been a report on lost dogs or stolen cars. So much for the objectivity and impartiality of British television news.

Every year since PIE had come into being, during the slow news time of parliamentary recess, the minions of the soft-porn tabloids had scurried out with their indignation and their power-winder cameras to rake together another shock story about the group. We were a silly-season staple for the NEWS OF THE WORLD, the SUNDAY PEOPLE and the DAILY STAR. The danger with papers of this vulgar, facile kind is that they are widely dismissed as being of no consequence to significant trends in popular opinion. The NOTW is generally regarded as a joke, but without the implicit malevolence and cruelty behind the joke being fully appreciated, or the extent to which the paper’s four million readers are being duped by the fantasies of its squalid-minded editor and staff. There is no room here to catalogue all the misshapen, libellous reports that have appeared concerning PIE over the last few years. An analysis of the coverage of the Old Bailey trial alone would require a full chapter, and in any case, such a virulent poison permeates this sea of press cuttings that the mere task of reading them all through is grossly offensive and unhealthy for one’s state of mind. Confronted with such wholesale, indiscriminate hatred a sense of proportion is difficult to maintain. There had been several major stories on PIE since Tom O’Carroll was convicted, each of which had repercussions far beyond the immediate distress inflicted on the committee members named, and illustrate well the harm which the gutter press can cause.

The first of these stories (NOTW, March 22nd., 1981) was occasioned by PIE having to open a new post Office box, the sponsor of our previous box, David Grove, having died. The Post Office leaked the home address of our new sponsor, Peter Bremner, to the NOTW so fast that the reporters were at his door before the box had even been used, and before the Executive Committee itself, let alone our members, knew where the P.O. Box was located.

Inside, the paper ran a feature on PIE, and the child pornography industry, being careful to blur any distinction between the two. The reporters were Charles Sandell and George Edwards. ‘The Dreadful Web of Child Corruption’ began as follows: “The evil men of Britain’s child sex organisation, the Paedophile Information Exchange, are just the tip of an iceberg. Behind them lies a web of pornography and degradation that spreads its tentacles worldwide – and even involves the Mafia.” After another couple of paragraphs which could leave no doubt in the reader’s mind that PIE was in fact a front for the manufacture and distribution of pornographic material, Sandell and Edwards went on: “The magazines… they produce do not stop at sexual abuse. Some show the systematic slow torture and even murder of children and young people.” Now if that was not a cut and dried case of libel, what is? Who could blame the public for its outrage against PIE when such nightmarish tales could be published about us with complete indemnity?

Someone else who spreads his tentacles worldwide is Rupert Murdoch, the Jehovah of yellow journalism, and the essence of this NOTW story quickly resurfaced as far away as Australia and in Sri Lanka where, in the SUNDAY OBSERVER (April 5th), PIE was described as “the sick porn merchants of the West”. Sri Lanka, like the Philippines, had long been celebrated among paedophiles and gays for its tolerance to homosexuality in general, and sudden government moves late in 1981 to curb sexual contact between local youth and Western tourists have been attributed in part to the scare campaign triggered by the NOTW. Perhaps this is overestimating the impact of that tawdry little paper, but the snowball effect of press hysteria was a very real phenomenon, as later stories demonstrated.

It was an open secret among anyone linked to the Executive Committee that for four years I was employed by a firm of electrical contractors, Complete Maintenance Ltd, to monitor a control panel of alarm systems at the Home Office, Westminster. The job entailed practically no work on my part, beyond attending the panel, and in fact I had a furnished office completely to myself seven days a week on a rotating shift basis. Much of PIE’s less sensitive file material was stored in locked cabinets there, where no police raid would ever have found them. Each year my security clearance was renewed by Scotland Yard without my connection with PIE being discovered. I’d known from the start that such a marvellous snook could never be cocked forever and sure enough the News of the World got hold of this information eventually. The paper contacted the Home Office immediately of course and gleefully drew this oversight to their attention. My security clearance was cancelled on the spot, my employers notified and I found myself not sacked but ‘rendered without employment’ – on the same day that reporter Alex Marunchak greeted me on my doorstep. ‘Child Sex boss in Whitehall Shock’ ran the headline.

And what do you suppose? – “Home Office security chiefs knew all about Steven Adrian Smith’s links with PIE”, claimed the report; “A Home Office spokesman said, ‘We’re aware of Smith’s background, and since the NEWS OF THE WORLD contacted us he has been told he’s no longer acceptable to us. He no longer works here. It would be true to say that he would still be here if you hadn’t been in touch.’” This silly bit of official face-saving apart, Marunchak went on to concoct a brief interview with myself. Instead of slamming the door in his face, which I seem to recall having done, I appear to have told him (with a swirl of my opera cloak), “Yes, I’m the chairman of PIE. So you’ve found out!” and so on. There was possible libel here too, for he alleged that at an EC meeting I had “bragged of (my) relationships with boys and urged members to organise a ‘dirty weekend’ with children at a south coast hotel.” This is imputing to me a specific criminality, but nonetheless – we were advised by a solicitor – whether I won a libel suit or not, and I stood every chance of doing so, that the sympathies of the jury would be wholly against me, and any damages derisory.

Some of us had fondly hoped that my inevitable discovery would at least throw such egg on the face of the government as to oust the Home Secretary (then, Mr. Whitelaw), but in the event, this story was curiously not picked up by any other paper (obviously, the ‘ruling class’ had to be protected), and our own attention was diverted by a plague of visits from DAILY STAR reporters the very next week. (Incidentally, the extent of security chiefs’ knowledge of my activities did not prompt them to investigate the content of my filing cabinets and a carload of PIE files was safely spirited from the building before it could occur to them to intervene.)

Once upon a time a reporter in the alternative press wrote (with just a hint of sarcasm) that it was about as difficult to ‘infiltrate’ PIE as to infiltrate Piccadilly Circus. He was absolutely right. One of the hazards of keeping our door wide open (as any counselling group must) is that all manner of creepy-crawlies are apt to find their way in along with more welcome visitors, and such a one was Charles Oxley, principal of two public schools, Christian fundamentalist, and wizened protégé of Mary Whitehouse. [12] Under the name of David Charlton he joined PIE with offers of practical help in EC work. He was good enough to type out for us Tom O’Carroll’s copious non-fiction booklist, and to photocopy at his own expense many other items for the PIE Press Service. As with anybody else who expressed a willingness to work, he was first met by an EC member to assess his character and reliability, then invited along to a couple of committee meetings. His sensational findings formed the basis of a four-page spread in the DAILY STAR (‘Child Sex Spy Tells All’ – August 21st, 1982) and many subsequent radio, press and police interviews. On the strength of just two meetings with the EC, Oxley had become the Establishment’s trusted authority on PIE. Who was taken in the more by his fantasies, PIE or the Establishment, is open to question. STAR reporters Paul Henderson and Barry Gardner played Woodward and Berstein [sic] to Oxley’s ‘Deep throat’.

Four committee members were named – David Joy, Peter Bremner, Lee Edwards and myself, and photos appeared of three of us (my mother was later to comment that the STAR photo was one of the best of me she’d seen!) It was no coincidence that the three committee members who were to be raided by the Obscene Publications Squad, almost exactly a year later, were David Joy, Peter Bremner and Lee Edwards. Not content with publishing our addresses, the DAILY STAR carried photos of our homes too, for greater ease of identification by neighbourhood vigilantes, mums’ armies, and neo-fascist groups.

The text itself was rather lame, even amusing in comparison to the previous year’s NOTW extravaganza, and only of interest for the crude, obvious manner in which colour was added. To convey the impression of PIE as a shifty, back-street organisation, our homes were variously described as “dingy”, “seedy”, and “an old mansion that comes straight from a horror movie”. Meetings were arranged, it said, “through a complicated exchange of letters and coded telephone calls” using “secret codes and passwords”. This was total fantasy and a familiar lie printed about the group – arrangements were far more mundane and prosaic than that, I’m afraid. Oxley knew that no pornography had been handed round at the meetings, but he was determined to create that impression at least: “Various paedophile books and magazine were mentioned and passed around” he hinted darkly. As I remember, Oxley took away one of these magazines himself for closer inspection, and never returned it – it was the latest issue of PAN (Paedo-Alert-News).

The news-gathering tactics of the DAILY STAR rate a mention here. We learned later that they had used menaces toward several children in Lee’s home street who would not answer their questions (Lee was staying with a family at the time, and the two daughters were tailed by the press for several days). When this proved fruitless, they set up a couple of young boys to accost Lee in the High Street and make conversation just long enough for him to be photographed form a parked car across the road. (Even when he called on me, Henderson had attempted to force his way into my house.) It was a standard routine for reporters on this kind of story to make a point of visiting all one’s neighbours and filling their heads with who-knows-what horrific yarns. There was a knife attack on Lee shortly after the story appeared, but as Lee is an ex-boxer he managed to send his assailant away with a bloody nose, never to return. Another standard hurdle with these reports was the local press follow-up, a boringly predictable after-shock when your local paper contrives to regurgitate the story for those of your neighbours who missed it the first time around. In this particular instance the STAR itself ran a follow-up story a few days later (‘Ban the PIE Men’) in which glory-hunting Tory back-bencher, Geoffrey Dickens, vowed he would table a Private Member’s Bill at the next session of Parliament which would proscribe PIE explicitly, and outlaw any other pro-paedophile organisations. [13] Dickens was the same stalwart who named diplomat Sir Peter Hayman, under House of Commons privilege, as the PIE member whose identity had been concealed throughout the trial (some six months after Hayman had been publicly identified in PRIVATE EYE magazine). Dickens did not win the Private member’s ballot, as chance would have it, and nothing more was heard of that pledge, but it seemed to us a serious threat at the time. Even a bungling oaf of Dickens’ calibre could hardly have failed with such an intimidatingly populist Bill, had he won the ballot.

By the winter of ’82, the papers were full of the Geoffrey Prime affair. Prime was exposed as a Russian supermole who worked at the government’s intelligence HQ at Cheltenham. Imprisoned for sex offences against young girls, as well as spying, it was alleged, unsubstantiated of course, that he either had links with Pie or was actually a member under an assumed name. As with the much earlier Sir Peter Hayman affair (he was the former British high Commissioner to Canada), and the later revelation that I myself and an EC colleague, Barry Cutler, were both employed on security at the Home Office, this latest scandal must have caused considerable embarrassment to the government. By now, PIE’s name must have been truly hated in the corridors of power. [14]

In June, 1983, the NOTW ran yet another of its regular silly stories, this time claiming that top TV stars and MPs were members of the Exchange. No names were mentioned, of course – except those of EC members. As a result of this and follow-up stories in such scandal sheets as the STAR and the SUN, committee members Mike Williams and Richard Travell lost their voluntary work as a scoutmaster and Sunday School teacher respectively. Travell was later denounced by his father, a church minister, and forced to move out of his home.

It would be possible to go on and on about the shock/horror stories concerning PIE, but this would serve little purpose since the point has been made. Suffice it to say that press harassment of the group was real, and it seemed that reporters were prepared to use any means, fair or foul, to ensure the organisation was destroyed. The time is coming when something will need to be done about the press in this country – and the sooner the better.

Final Words

If paedophiles have little faith in the press, they have certainly got even less for the criminal justice system in this country, for being a paedophile is an invitation for every sort of injustice there is. While baby batterers walk away with derisory sentences after being slapped on the wrist and told not to do it again, people whose only ‘crime’ is that they love children can expect to have the book thrown at them and endure years of attacks in squalid prisons from real criminals. One can inflict horrendous physical suffering on a child, but if one is unfortunate enough to be a paedophile who has consensual sex – oh well, that’s classed as worse than murder.

Similarly with ‘corporal punishment’ which is, in truth, nothing more than a euphemism for legal assault. This practice is widely supported in these isles, and it is no coincidence that the organisations and people who were most opposed to PIE were the very ones who endorsed it most. The message is clear: abuse is okay as long as it is socially approved.

Back in its earlier days, PIE itself initiated a campaign against this practice and received letters of support from such well-known people as Baroness Wootton, and Sir Alfred Ayer, the philosopher. But PIE, being a tiny organisation, could only do so much.

For PIE, the time has now run out; but the ideas behind it will continue to survive.

Editor’s note: Soon after the above article was written, its author along with two other PIE EC members were arrested on incitement charges in connection with issue No. 6 of the group’s internal bulletin, CONTACT. Before the trial, Steve Smith fled to Holland where he still resides. The two other defendants were subsequently found not guilty of the incitement charges, but guilty of a lesser charge. After renewed threats to proscribe PIE, the group finally succumbed to political pressure, and the organisation disbanded in early summer, 1985. Because of this, all articles in this book referring to PIE, including the above, have had the tense changed from present to past.

NOTES AND REFERENCES

1. A journal of PIE
2. Lee Edwards was later alleged (though unproven) to have given or sold confidential information about PIE and its members to the NEWS OF THE WORLD, which published the details, much of them erroneous, in a front page splash.
3. I refer, of course, to the notorious Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals trials of early 1981.
4. Tom O’Carroll (Peter Owen, London, 1980).
5. ‘Men Loving Boys Loving Men’, by Gerald Hannon (BODY POLITIC, March/April, 1979).
6. It was Kenneth Clarke in CIVILISATION who said that ‘nearly all the upward steps in the history of civilisation have been internationalist steps.”
7. CAPITAL GAY (July 15th, 1983).
8. CONTACT! Which was edited by myself, was the internal bulletin of PIE.
9. PAEDOPHILIA: SOME QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS (PIE, 1979).
10. EVIDENCE ON THE LAW RELATING TO, AND PENALTIES FOR, CERTAIN SEXUAL OFFENCES INVOLVING CHILDREN – FOR THE HOME OFFICE CRIMINAL LAW REVISION COMMITTEE, ed. by Keith R. Hose and Michael Burbidge (PIE, 1975).
11. THE LAW RELATING TO CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ACTS: A DISCUSSION PAPER (prepared by The CHE Law Reform Committee’, 1980).
12. Oxley was, at the time of writing, chairman of the right wing National Campaign for Law and Order, which incidentally supports hanging and corporal punishment, and deputy chairman of Mary Whitehouse’s Viewers’ and Listeners’ Association.
13. Even revelations that he was consorting with two other women, despite the fact that he was married, didn’t stop Dickens attacking PIE. Hypocrisy has no bounds, it seems. I often wonder what the dickens the man would do if it weren’t for paedophiles???
14. Well before the Hayman affair, another Establishment figure, Lord Bingham, had also been revealed as a PIE member.

[ADDENDUM: The ‘Lord Bingham’ in question here was Richard Maurice Clive Bigham, Viscount Mersey (1934-2006), who admitted PIE membership and contact with a 10-year old girl, who would remove her clothes when offered money and sweets by him; the girl’s mother went on trial in Manchester Crown Court in 1978 on charges of inciting one of her daughters to commit gross indecency with Bigham. See ‘Peer’s son in sex case ‘revolted”, Glasgow Herald, July 20th, 1978]

Advertisements

15 Comments on “PIE – Documentary Evidence 7 – Steven Adrian Smith’s History of the Movement”

  1. Troyhand says:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PbZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=6004,3806521
    The Glasgow Herald – Jul 20, 1978
    Peer’s son in sex case ‘revolted’

    A viscount’s son told a court yesterday that he travelled to Manchester to meet child prostitutes, and paid £70 for an introduction. He also said that after “contact” with a girl of 10 on a bed he was revolted by his actions.

    Richard Maurice Clive Bigham, the Master of Nairne who is the eldest son of the third Viscount Mersey, was giving evidence at the trial in Manchester Crown Court of a 39-year-old mother accused of inciting one of her daughters to commit gross indecency with him.

    Mr Bigham, aged 44, said he had been a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, but said of his activities with the girl: “It was revolting and was the worst thing I could conceivably do.”

    The 10-year-old girl told later about a trip to Rotterdam. On another occasion at home, she said, she took off her clothes when offered money and sweets. She was then photographed by a man she thought was a doctor.

    ***The girl’s mother, Victoria Hughes, a self-employed hairdresser, of Delft Walk, Salford, Lancs., pled not guilty to three charges.***

    They are: Encouraging an indecent assault on a girl under 16; indecent assault, with two men, on a girl under 13; and, with a man, inciting a girl of 10 to commit gross indecency with Mr Bigham.

    Mr Bigham, a film technician, told the jury he was interested in paedophilia “on a photographic level only.” He said he met a man called Spielman in Manchester to be “introduced by him to child prostitutes.”

    He said he paid Spielman £70 and Spielman sold him two boxes of chocolates for the children.

    Bigham, of Rosmead Road, Notting Hill, London, claimed his sexual attraction to children had been through photographs. “I suppose I was trying to climb back on my fantasy bandwagon of photographs,” he said. “I was revolted.”

    He was not trying to justify what he did in the bedroom.

    He told the police he thought what he had done was within the law because it was with parental consent.

    In the witness box later, the 10-year-old girl said when she went to Rotterdam with her mother, brother, and sister, they were met by a man as they got off the boat.

    The children had then been shown round by the man who met them at the boat, the girl said. “I saw a Dutchman and I think an Italian man putting white things over the beds. I thought they were doctors because they had white coats.”

    The girl’s brother said the doctor took photographs of himself and his sister when they were unclothed and that he had been given a box of chocolates and £50 by the man.

    Shown a statement he made to police last October, the boy said its contents were untrue. He said: “They put the words into my mouth.”

    The trial continues today.


    The Mirror – 27 July 1978
    Shocking secret in a porn merchant’s locker
    By Brian Crowther

    GUILTY: Herman Spielman – known to little girls as Doctor John. He built an empire of child porn.
    HUGHES: Sold her two little girls for vice
    CROSS: Told all

    An evil child porn racket operated by company boss Herman Spielman was uncovered by a sheer fluke.

    One of his workers opened a cupboard – and a secret hoard of sordid photographs tumbled out.

    When police were tipped off they smashed a sinister empire that was piling up huge profits for 57-year-old Spielman.

    The innocent little girls he enticed into his web called him “Doctor John.” He doled out chocolates, sweets and money as he taught them to pose for obscene pictures that were sold worldwide.

    Some of his “little Lolitas” were trained in degrading sex acts, then hired out to wealthy perverts who lust after children.

    The reckoning came for Spielman at Manchester Crown Court yesterday. He got a six-year sentence after admitting indecency charges.

    ***Also jailed was 39-year-old Victoria Hughes, who sold her two daughters – aged six and ten – for sex.***

    Hughes, of Delft Walk, Salford, Lancs. got a four-year sentence.

    Denial
    She had denied the charges, claiming that when she introduced her little girls to Spielman she did not realise he was a porn merchant.

    But Mr Justice Forbes told her: “It is very difficult to imagine a worse case of indecent assault on a small girl than one in which a mother provides her own child for that purpoe.”

    Spielman, whose home is in Stanley Road, Salford, belongs to a strict Jewish sect. He prayed every day at a synagogue.

    He is the father of six children, and told detectives at one stage: “I am a good family man. I love children.”

    But the man who found that tell-tale bundle of photographs, 34-year-old Denis Rogers, said: “Some of the children in them looked absolutely petrified at what was being done to them.

    “There were little girls hardly out of the nappy stage.”

    Spielman’s normal feelings for children ended at his own from door.

    [Let’s not forget about the very spooky and evil Eric Mervyn Harold Cross. Victoria Hughes sold her children to PIE member Viscount Mersey through Herman Spielman and International Child sex trafficker Eric Cross.]

    The worldwide trail of vice
    By Sidney Williams

    Herman Spielman was part of an international network of child vice.

    His sordid role became clear after the Los Angeles arrest of Eric Cross, the man exposed by the Mirror earlier this year as the sex pervert with children for sale.

    American police questioned Cross for several days before he broke down and spoke about Spielman, the man he knew as Fred Watling, boss of the Watling Press in Manchester’s Corporation Street.

    Detectives uncovered a network of child prostitution spreading through Britain, Europe, America and the Far East.

    They learned how Spielman drove “customers” round Manchester to meet girls aged six, 11 and 12 for sex.

    The price, said Cross, was not cheap. Spielman wanted 80 per child.

    The Mirror has in its possession a letter from Cross in which he refers a client to Spielman.

    “You can refer to me,” wrote Cross. “It is not cheap however, so I am not sure if this would pay since you have enough dolls to play with.”

    Cross also gave police a dossier of British mothers who could be willing to make their children available to the vice network.

    http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/category/eric-cross-herman-spielman/
    Eric Cross & Herman Spielman

    http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=254871
    Eric Cross : paedophile, conman, spy

  2. Troyhand says:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=GGgVawPscysC&dat=19780530&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
    Glasgow Herald – 30 May 1978
    Eight-year-old girl’s name on child sex list

    The name of an eight-year-old Manchester schoolgirl appeared on a list of 500 children available for sexual purposes, the National Association of Head Teachers conference was told yesterday.

    The Brighton conference was told during a debate on the use of children in pornography that the list was found by American police on a man picked up in Los Angeles.

    Delegate Mr Thomas Price, head of Crumpsall Special School, Manchester, said he heard of the case through a colleague. The head wrote to Mr Price about the most “horrific experience” in his 30 years of teaching.

    Policemen from the vice squad had inquired at his school about the girl.

    The headmaster said the girl was one or more than 200 homeless children who came to his school during the year, but had since moved on.

    The conference passed overwhelmingly a resolution by Mr Price welcoming the introduction by Parliament of legislation to prohibit the use of children for pornographic purposes in England and Wales.

    Earlier, Mr Price had warned that there were still loopholes which could be used to corrupt children.

    It was a sad fact, he said, that there were many grown-ups who would do anything for money. It was even sadder that there were also children who would do literally anything for money.

    Films such as “Baby Doll” and “Lolita” put children at risk. The NAHT must give its fullest support to all measures designed to prevent the exploitation of children.

    It must back all measures to halt the import of pornographic books, films, photographs and magazines.

    Mr Price said that earlier this year the founder of a New York home for disturbed children warned that Britain was in danger of being swamped with child pornography.

    But the influx of pornographic material was not just to be anticipated from the West, he said. “We are already being inundated with smuggled, hard-core material from Europe, which is them distributed in London and the major provincial cities.”

    The conference also passed overwhelmingly a resolution expressing deep concern at the serious situation in many schools over supervision of meals. It called on Education Secretary Mrs Shirley Williams to reconsider the position as a matter of urgency.

    An appeal for more help came from Mr Clifford Fisher, head of the Beverley School, New Malden, Surrey.

    “I have done 11 years without a single lunch break – that is my stint. 11 years without a period off duty,” he told delegates.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=4LZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=sqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2083%2C8309
    Glasgow Herald – 1 June 1978
    Police clear ‘porn’ girl

    Police last night closed their file on a little girl of seven whose name was found on an American porn merchant’s “sex for sale” list. They believe the child’s name was used after her mother innocently answered a newspaper advertisement for American penfriends.

    Mr Charles Horan, Greater Manchester Assistant Chief Constable (Crime) said there was no evidence that the girl took part in any unlawful sex. He said her mother – “a respectable lady” – had been traced, and all her children were well cared for.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PrZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=3204%2C4073543
    Glasgow Herald – 21 July 1978
    Trial told of ‘lady seeks gents’ ad

    A mother was said in court yesterday to have admitted advertising herself in a “contact” magazine, but to have denied advertising her children.

    Victoria Hughes (39), a self-employed hairdresser, of Delft Walk, Salford, has pled not guilty at Manchester Crown Court to inciting one of her daughters to commit gross indecency with Richard Bigham, a viscount’s son.

    She also denies encouraging indecent assault on a girl under 16, and indecent assault, with two men, on a girl under 13.

    Mr Bigham told the jury he went to Manchester to meet “child prostitutes.” He said he was met by a man named Spielman who, for £70, took him to Hughe’s home.

    Woman Detective Sergeant Reay Barker told the court yesterday she followed the van in which Spielman took Bigham to Hughe’s home. She said the two men were there for 38 minutes, during which times Hughes never left the house.

    Four days later, on October 10 last year, she went to Hughe’s home with a search warrant, looking for obscene photographs. Hughes told her the men had been on a social visit.

    Detective Sergeant Barker said Hughes told her she had advertised in contact magazines “a few years back to meet people.”

    Asked the purpose of the advertising, she said: “Well, you know.” But she denied she had ever advertised her children.

    Sergeant Barker said Hughes told her she knew Spielman as “Mr Johnson” and her children knew him as “Doctor John.”

    Sergeant Barker said that during another interview, Hughes said she met “Mr Johnson” having advertised in two magazines as “lady wishes to meet gents.”

    Hughes, the officer said, had said she knew nothing about any photographs after children being taken at her home, but said that at some stage while “Mr Johnson” and his friend were in the house she had gone shopping.

    The officer alleged Hughes did admit that while she was in the house Mr Johnson’s friend had gone upstairs to the toilet while her six-year-old daughter was in the bath.

    Sergeant Barker said she said to Hughes: “Not only did you know what was going on but you got £10 for it.” She said Hughes had replied: “I did not get anything – I love my kids too much to do that with them.”

    Cross-examined by Mr Michael West, QC, for Hughes, Sergeant Barker said she knew Hughes as a prostitute who had been convicted “many times” of loitering for that purpose. She said Hughes catered for fetishists.

    Mr West suggested that Sergeant Barker had been “extremely rough, extremely cross, and, indeed, angry” when she interviewed Hughes.

    He said: “You were being really tough towards her. You had already found her guilty before asking a single question. You had already made up your mind and you were not prepared to give this old harlot houseroom.”

    Sergeant Barker: “That old harlot is the same age as me, and I do not consider myself old.”

    Mr West: “You were not prepared to give that woman you knew to be a prostitute houseroom?”

    Sergeant Barker: “I had a job to do.”

    The trial continues today.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=P7ZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=4923%2C4299555
    Glasgow Herald – 22 July 1978
    Threats to sex trial woman brings warning

    A Judge issued a stern warning during a trial in Manchester yesterday to people making threats to a woman standing trial on charges of indecency involving young girls.

    Victoria Hughes (39), of Delft Walk, Salford, denies encouraging indecent assault on a girl under 16, indecent assault with two men on a girl under 13, and inciting one of her daughters to commit gross indecency with Richard Bigham, a viscount’s son.

    At the start of yesterday’s hearing, Mr Michael West, QC, for Hughes, said: “I should like to raise a matter that has been causing more concern to the defendant than anything else.

    “She had been subjected to not only a number of telephone calls but also letters containing threats and abuse, all of which would constitute contempt in the face of the court.

    “It is an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice in this case. If your Lordship would indicate your concern, it might deter some of them.”

    Mr Justice Forbes said: “It is quite obvious that if people write threatening or abusive letters to persons on trial, it is capable of being contempt of court in so far as it may affect the position of a person on trial and put them in a situation of embarrassment.

    “It seems to me to clearly interfere with the course of justice and I have no hesitation in saying so. We know many members of the public who do this sort of thing.”

    The hearing continues on Monday.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=QbZAAAAAIBAJ&sjid=rqUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2843%2C4761621
    Glasgow Herald – 25 July 1978
    I’m innocent, says vice-charge mother

    Victoria Hughes wept in the dock at Manchester Crown Court yesterday as she denied selling her children into vice. “I love my kids very, very much. I know I am innocent,” she said.

    The defence has claimed that Hughes (39), of Delft Walk, Salford, Lancashire, was not in the house when alleged offences were committed against her 10-year-old daughter.

    Three shopkeepers told the court that Hughes was in their shops at lunchtime on October 6 when police claim she was at home. Local traders, Mrs Elsie Croft, Mr Peter Kay, and Mrs Pat Stretch, all supported the defence claim.

    Mr Michael West, defending, said he did not propose to call Hughes to give evidence from the witness box, but that she did wish to make a statement from the dock.

    Hughes denies encouraging an indecent assault on a girl under 16, indecent assault on a girl under 13, and inciting a girl of 10 to commit an act of gross indecency with Richard Bigham, the Master of Nairne and eldest son of the third Viscount Mersey.

    The prosecution claim that Bigham, a 44-year-old film director, of Rosmead Road, Notting Hill, London, paid £70 for a 40-minute sex session with the girl while Hughes was present in the house.

    In her statement Hughes said: “For the last 10 months I have been pressurised and I have been pressurised and have thrown bricks at my window like I am a dirty thing.”

    The jury has been told by Mr Justice Forbes that they would not be asked to consider the charge of inciting the girl to commit an act of gross indecency. “There is no evidence here to support the prosecution case on that count,” he said.

    The trial continues today.

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=GGgVawPscysC&dat=19780725&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
    Glasgow Herald – 25 July 1978
    Sex publishers back action against child porn

    Sex magazine publishers gave their support yesterday to demands for tough Government action against child pornography.

    They also voiced their “unease” at obscenity which exploits sadism, brutality, and torture.

    “We would not oppose legislation designed to prevent this,” the British Adult Publications Association has told a Home Office committee.

    Members of the association, representing publishers, wholesalers, distributors, and retailers, claim to sell more than 50,000,000 magazines a year.

    Their evidence to the Williams Committee on obscenity and film censorship, published yesterday, is opposed to the use and abuse of children in the production of obscene material.

    But the association, which includes nine of the 13 main publishers of sex magazines, goes on to detail “frequent injustice” under present obscenity laws.

    The president, Mr John Trevelyan, the former British film censor, said yesterday: “The existing legal definition of obscenity in law was taken from a judgment made in 1868. How can anything like that stand up today?”

    The association points out that legislation has assumed obscenity is always related to sex, and makes three major points:

    Law cannot make anyone moral.

    Obscenity is a matter of subjective individual opinion.

    Freedom should not be eroded to get rid of obscenity.

    In 19 pages of evidence, the trade suggests that any new legislation should include the word “harmful” rather than obscene” in the title. “We find such things as sadism, brutality, and torture more obscene than anything sexual,” it adds.

    “We do not believe that obscenity is really important to society. Many people find it offensive, but society suffers – and will continue to suffer – many other offensive things, although, as with prostitution, such things can be kept from public view.”

    Among changes the association seeks is a regulation that publishers should take responsibility for what is sold, excluding distributors and retailers from court actins.

    Other points from the evidence are:

    NO OBSCENITY prosecutions should be brought without leave of the director of public prosecutions.
    [Sir Peter Hayman appreciated this, I’m sure]

    PROSECUTIONS should begin within nine months of publication.

    THERE SHOULD be a statutory provision that no publisher can be acquitted by one jury and indicted elsewhere for the same article.

    A RECEIPT for any article seized by the police should be given as a right.

    [One leading member of the Adult Publications Association for the Williams Report was the pretending-to-be-dead David Hamilton-Grant.]

  3. Troyhand says:

    http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/WilcoxDuncanCross.html
    NUDIST/NATURIST HALL OF SHAME

    Tim Wilcox, John Duncan, Eric Cross, Chuck Hughes & Friends
    & Their Multi-Victim Multi-Perpetrator Nudist Sex Ring
    Part I
    by Nikki Craft

    As you are reading ask yourself where these men are today, what nudist camps they are attending, and remember that this was during a period that the ASA (now American Association for Nude Recreation (AANR) was telling nudists how safe nudism was. Then ask yourself how many pedophiles it takes to ruin a child’s day a nudist camp.

    When Eric Cross left John Duncan’s house he went to pornographer Ron Raffaelli’s. It was this visit that led to the arrest of Raffaelli and Cross.

    Tracking Tim Wilcox back to the mid-1970s revealed that, even before his felony conviction for child molestation in 1978, he was an active nudist attending and photographing nudist and “free beach” activities.

    Behind the scenes he was running contact ads in publications such as Lolita, and The Star, published by Paul and Shirley Eberle (see the ICONoclast, Vol. 1, #2) that would put him in touch with other pedophiles.

    Wilcox’s personal ads also appeared in Person to Person. Person was advertised in over-the-counter men’s magazines and distributed internationally to over 5,000 men by Bobby Wayne Seida. Seida was convicted in 1978 for distribution of child pornography.

    An advertisement placed by Wilcox in the May 9, 1977, issue of Person to Person read: “Pedophile would like to find a lady to settle down with. I live in the northern California mountains. Tim Wilcox, P.O. Box xxxx, Auburn, Ca 95603.” Then, as now, Wilcox networked diligently to find other like-minded people.

    Through these classified ads Tim Wilcox connected with John Robert Duncan (a.k.a. Lance Carlson and Rod Redfern), a pedophile with at least one prior conviction in Long Beach, California for child molestation. From June 1975 through 1976, Duncan and Wilcox traded photographs of children and wrote letters about photography, child pornography, and molestation.

    The letters written between the two of them establish that from the beginning Duncan’s sexual interest in children was well known to Wilcox, as Wilcox’s sexual interest in children was likewise known to Duncan.

    Bill Dworin, investigating officer in the Sexually Exploited Child Unit in Los Angeles, said that when Wilcox went to Los Angeles to visit John Duncan, he molested several children. Wilcox was convicted for his involvement with one girl, Yvonne, who was six years old at the time. According to Dworin, “she was very messed up over the whole thing,” but still testified in court and identified Wilcox as the man who molested her.

    Yvonne’s father, Charles James (Chuck) Hughes, another active nudist who was frequently photographed at nudist clubs with many different children, was also convicted with Wilcox of conspiracy. According to court documents, the object of the conspiracy was to commit the crimes of “lewd acts upon a child under 14 years of age,” “sale of a person for immoral purposes,” “sending a minor to an immoral place,” and “contributing to the delinquency of minors.”

    “Thank you for turning me on to the Young World of Duncan. I feel a little stupid. I said, before meeting Yvonne that I didn’t want to meet her. I wanted Lisa because she sounded more forward. I feel stupid because I now want Yvonne. I find myself dreaming about Yvonne all the time. I want to play with her clit with my tongue. I want to play with her all night and all day. I would like to deliver the pictures to Chuck myself.”
    –Letter from Tim Wilcox to John Duncan Sept 18, 1975

    Duncan corresponded with men from all over the world, many of them nudists. In letters to Henry Johnson, Duncan bragged about his sexual involvement with children. Johnson resided in San Diego and later joined Duncan’s group in L.A. He was convicted in related charges with Wilcox.

    Duncan, Hughes, and Johnson had access to about eight different children aged 18 months to 16 years. According to Dworin, Duncan’s friendship was important to Wilcox because Wilcox wanted access to the children that Duncan had under his control.

    Dworin said there were 16 children identified in sexually explicit photographs confiscated by police, but police could locate only eight victims. The photos that were taken of these children by the men indicted have turned up in Lolita, which is an explicit child-sex magazine that used photographs of nudist children from all over the world. Lolita is also where Wilcox and others in the group had run ads to find available children and other pedophiles.

    “John, Thanks for sending the model release forms to me. The plan of you looking at the prints and then sealing them for Chuck worked out. Did Chuck like the print of Vicki? Chuck would like one print of every frame? There will be 69 different pictures and that would take me about 9 hours to print. I would normally charge a person $1.50 each print 8 by 10 of course. But for you I will only charge $1.00 … Sounds like you had a good time at the nudist camp.”
    –Letter to John Duncan from Tim Wilcox, Oct 9, 1975

    The children who were molested, girls and a few boys, were taken to Black’s Beach on several occasions where they played and had their bodies painted in brightly colored paint. These visits to the beach, according to L.A. police, were to “acclimate them to nudity. Then after going to the beach the children would be taken to motel rooms and sold to men who traveled in from across the country.” All ten of the other men indicted, excluding Wilcox and Hughes, pled guilty to charges involving exploitation and abuse of children.

    Duncan lost interest in the children in one family once they entered puberty, because he preferred children aged six to ten, so he consigned them to Frederick Cornelius (a.k.a Tony) Hoston. Hoston assumed a surrogate father role and began molesting all of them. He was arrested and indicted along with Wilcox and his co-conspirators.

    According to a news article (reprinted above) from the Gary Indiana Post Tribune, Hoston eluded arrest by returning to Indiana, where he intended to start another child prostitution ring. After he was discovered by police, he escaped and fled to San Francisco, where he changed his appearance. He was later killed by police during a robbery attempt.

    Duncan invited many other men he corresponded with to come to L.A. for visits, among them Joseph Francis Henry from New York. Henry was also convicted after traveling to L.A. and paying Duncan $500 to molest the same children Wilcox was convicted of molesting.

    Henry, a man who has since admitted to molested 22 girls, aged 9 to 11, when he testified before the Permanent Subcommittee on Governmental Affairs before the United States Senate, Ninety- Ninth Congress. In 1971 Henry was caught molesting nudist girls at the New Jersey nudist camp he managed, but charges were not filed against him by the club or by the girls’ parents.

    Peter Windsor (a.k.a. John Blount), a nudist from England, arrived around the same time, met Duncan, and molested several children during his visit. Windsor then traveled to the Netherlands, where he met a nudist mother. He was photographed with her and her child on a nude beach. When Windsor was later arrested on charges relating to Wilcox’s case, he possessed large quantities of commercial and non-commercial pornography as well as nudist photos of children alone and with him on nude beaches all over the world.

    Eric Cross was also involved with Donald Woodward, a nudist who served eight years in prison for sexually molesting several children from Camping Bares, a naturist group in San Diego. Cross met Woodward thru correspondence and convinced him to get involved in Cross’s prison project where he produced child pornography.

    Well, according to nudists, just innocent pictures of naked children.

    Another nudist who visited Duncan was Eric Cross. Cross, a well-educated English con artist and world traveler, left Canada in the early 1970s for Florida where he befriended two families with children. During visits to Disney World, the children were photographed in sexually explicit poses in a motel room. Cross, who was the photographer who took most of the photos that appeared in another child pornography magazine called “Lolitots” took the undeveloped film with him to the Netherlands, intending to turn the photos over to Jan Winderhold, who was then the publisher of Lolita. However, when Cross attempted to develop the photographs, he was reported to police by the photo lab.

    Dutch officials, known for their extremely liberal tolerance for pornography, including child pornography, threw Cross out of Holland. He returned to England, where he was taken into custody after being identified via a warrant issued for his arrest for the Florida incident. Cross fought extradition for a year and a half but was finally returned to Florida where he was sentenced to a Florida state psychiatric hospital for distribution of child pornography and for child molestation.

    From the Florida hospital, Cross distributed so-called child “erotica,” and one publication called Tuesday’s Child, a magazine that first used nudist children posed in Playboy-styled positions and then became increasingly more explicit.

    It was through his involvement in child pornography that Cross began a correspondence with Tim Wilcox’s mentor, John Rober Duncan. When Cross escaped from the psychiatric hospital in 1978 — with the help of two women who supplied a stolen rental car — he went to Robert’s house in L.A.

    According to Dworin, Duncan immediately disliked Cross because “he was pushy and wanted control over the kids,” so the group expelled him. When Cross left he stole several of Duncan’s letters in which Duncan had bragged about having sex with children.

    Next Cross went to see pornographer Ron Raffaelli. Unbeknownst to Cross, Raffaellis’ house was under surveillance by the L.A. police because of Raffaellis’ involvement in the production of child pornography. According to Dworin, Los Angeles police had arrested a fourteen year child who had runaway from home in 1977 and who admitted to being photographed by Raffaelli. But since the girl refused to testify, charges were never filed.

    When Cross arrived at Raffaellis’ home, Dworin observed Cross meet with Raffaelli and ran a check and found that the rental car had been stolen. They began to watch Cross at his exclusive hotel in Belair.

    Several days later a nudist woman from Oakdale Nudist Camp named Maryanne Hendershaw and her two children, Karri and Jamie — who had been raised as nudist children — arrived at the hotel accompanied by Raffaelli. Josephy Henry the New Jersey Nudist Camp Manager was also present at the hotel room when the photos were to have been taken. The photo shoot was abruptly interrupted by police and all were immediately taken into custody at that time.

    When Eric Cross was apprehended [1978], he was “looking at hard time” and, according to police, he couldn’t be shut up. Dworin said he was “ready to turn states evidence on everyone involved.” He furnished Duncan’s stolen letters to police and informed them that Duncan was, along with others, molesting a large group of children.

    [1978: When Eric Cross was communicating with Herman Spielman in Manchester re. Victoria Hughes/PIE member Viscount Mersey case.]

    [The obscene tapes of Russell Howard Tricker confiscated at customs in 1982 were labeled on two as “GB10” and “LB”. This could mean “Golden Boys #10” and “Loverboys,” both titles used by COQ distributors out of Denmark.

    http://openjurist.org/896/f2d/271/united-states-v-duncan
    “An additional section of the brochure offered COQ foto sets. COQ formerly was the largest distributor in the world of male homosexual child pornography. The section read as follows:
    Loverboys # 1, 2”

    http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume4/j4_2_1.htm
    “Many films were produced by the firm COQ in Holbaek in Denmark, under the title Golden Boys. The ambiance (clothing, landscape, housing style) of various films we saw suggests that these were made in the United States, possibly in the West”.

    The possibility is high that the COQ videos were filmed in Southern California and distributed through Eric Cross and this American paedophile ring.]

    Los Angeles police quickly returned Cross to Florida where he was incarcerated, this time in prison instead of a hospital. Once again he prepared to distribute child pornography from prison, but federal investigators intervened and he was convicted again for distribution. [1983] He is now serving a 95 year sentence in a federal penitentiary in Florida.

    Eric Cross was, according to police, active in European naturism. When he got to the US he quickly acquainted himself with the nudist/pedophile network that supplied children. He claimed to police that he could “spot a pedophile within five minutes” and informed them that for years he had located available children and other pedophiles at nudist camps and nude beaches throughout the world. While he was being questioned by police, Cross also told them that after leaving Duncan’s house he paid a visit to Edmond Leja too.

    According to police, Cross, Raffaelli, and Hendershaw were meeting for a nude photo shoot of the children. They were, however all taken into custody before it could take place. But, the children had already been the subject of exploitation by other photographers including nudist child pornographer Edmond Leja (a.k.a Ed Lea), Ron Raffaelli and their colleague, world renowned naturist/nudist photographer, Leif Heilberg.

    Ron Raffaelli, a talented, ex-establishment photographer who did ads for Honda, Pepsi and American Airlines, and whose works have hung in the Smithsonian Institute, dropped acid one day on Laguna beach and had a vision. He would use his photography to “praise love and vanquish shame and guilt.” Removing himself from the world of corporate advertising was his first valiant beginning and to become a prolific pornographer was his next move.

    In an introduction to one of his books he wrote: “So…be free…go naked…join the sexual revolution. Remember, “It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave… And keep on thinking free.”

    Raffaelli has gone on to make 70 “erotic films” and publish countless photo books. An ad or one of his books read: “Water nymphs: Rain fires sizzling young passions;” another reads: “Cosmic re-entry: Beautiful girl violated by phallic light.”

    What concerns this author about Raffaelli’s work, though it applies to a small number of his titles, is his allusions to violence and violation in titles selling his porn films and books, and also his photography of minors and adult women made to appear as children.

    Karri and Jamie and their mother had been first introduced to Raphaelli by Ed Leja. When Maryanne Hendershaw was first befriended by Leja she had been a long time visitor to Oakdale Nudist Camp in Devore, California (now Treehouse) known at the time to be the largest swingers club in southern California. Leja was publishing a nudist child porn magazine called Nudist Moppets when they met.

    One issue of Nudist Moppets was filled with more than 30 photographs taken of the two children. Leif Heilberg and his wife, Sally, were listed as photo editors for that particular issue, and several other issues, of Nudist Moppets.

    As Playboy does to women, Nudist Moppets catalogs children repetitively as sexually available commodities for men’s acquisition and use. That many nudists can see nothing wrong with this treatment of children is part of the problem with pedophiles in the nudist/naturist lifestyle; that these children were put through this, even if just to promote nudism, is exploitation.

    Naturism cannot be actual liberation if it must promise sexual satisfaction and conquest to its male members by exploiting women’s bodies and selling images of innocence and youth to the outside public from exploited children’s bodies; that these nudist magazines directly result in the molestation of other children besides those photographed is a tragedy in which the nudist/naturist movement remains complicit.

    –Nikki Craft, 1989

  4. Troyhand says:

    [Pro-pornography apologist’s site on Photographer Ron Raffaelli when Eric Cross was arrested.]

    http://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/cn/cn20.html

    Maybe the (im)moral here goes something like this: if you’re a “pornographer” (i.e., a sex photographer), you shouldn’t spend any time with or near children, certainly not photograph them with their clothes off. Raffaelli has already been through the legal maze once on this issue, in Los Angeles during the 70s. Seems the L.A. cops had put his studio under surveillance because of his increasing acclaim as the best of the 70s pornsters. They noticed, of all things, families with children coming and going from the place. What could this mean? the boys from L.A. Blue asked themselves. Could it mean Ron Raffaelli was a man who had friends and acquaintances who had children, who felt there was no reason they should leave their kids at the door when they visited his studio? Nah. Sex photo studio = sleaze. Sleaze + children = major sleaze. Major sleaze = moral outrage, not to mention political opportunity.

    So they got themselves a search warrant and raided his studio, finding nothing but the very set of photos that the cops in Delano found this January. They then spent a year searching for evidence of Raffaelli as child pornographer, finding nothing more. After many delays, the judge in the case finally lost patience and threw the case out of court.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Raffaelli
    Ron Raffaelli is an American photographer known for his documenting rock music icons in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Jimi Hendrix [Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Blind Faith, etc.] , for whom Raffaelli acted as official photographer on his American tour.

  5. […] Smith’s history of PIE, as published in Betrayal of Youth, can be found HERE.  Steven Smith was also jailed twenty years earlier, in 1991, for child porn […]

  6. […] members were jailed for various offences relating to images of child sexual abuse. I have elsewhere posted the text of Steven Adrian Smith’s History of PIE from this book, but want to also post here the second appendix from the book, written by Timothy d’Arch […]

  7. […] PIE – Documentary Evidence 7 – Steven Adrian Smith’s History of the Movement (31/3/14) […]

  8. You’re certain hence substantially when it comes to the following topic, made me in my view think it is through numerous many attitudes. It’s similar to women and men are not serious except in cases where it truly is something to do with Kesha! Your very own things superb. All of the time handle that!

  9. Troyhand says:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=EUMvAAAAYAAJ&q=%22Los+Angeles+and+San+Diego+police,+but+at+least+Navy+investigators%22&dq=%22Los+Angeles+and+San+Diego+police,+but+at+least+Navy+investigators%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=7mSyU6-3CtKnyASSv4CoDw&ved=0CCIQ6AEwAA
    U.S. News & World Report, Volume 102
    U.S. News & World Report 1 June 1987

    Why the secrets slip out

    Whatever its secret successes have been, the past three years have clearly been the worst of times for America’s intelligence community. Since January, 1984, no fewer than 20 U.S. citizens have been convicted of stealing national secrets, compared with just four in the previous four-year period.

    Why the great increase? In the arcane world of espionage, men and women spy for one or more elements in the SMICE formula – sex, money, ideology, compromise and ego. Whatever the motivation, the rash of spying raises critical questions. Are the nation’s intelligence institutions to porous that they offer unparalleled opportunities for secrets thieves? Or are our counterespionage efforts catching spies who once might have gone free? Or are foreign governments — particularly the Soviets — simply fielding more and better agents to reap America’s secrets?

    This much is certain: From homegrown spies like John Walker— considered to have caused the greatest damage – Jerry Whitworth, Ronald Pelton, Lawrence Wu-tai Chin, Edward Lee Howard and Jonathan Jay pollard to the sex-for-secrets scandal at the Moscow embassy, at no time in U.S. history has espionage so harmed national security. And in almost every case, attention to fundamentals might have prevented, or at least, minimized such breaches.

    Clearly, in a democracy, no system that relies on human judgements and instincts can be made foolproof. But how secure are America’s secrets? What follows are three windows on the intelligence community that reveal a portrait of carelessness, foolishness and betrayal.

    The first offers an insider’s look at what passed for security at a major Washington intelligence agency. The second tells the previously untold story of how Pollard was able to ransack the intelligence files of six different agencies. The third is an examination of how Moscow’s espionage apparatus tries to exploit U.S. weaknesses. A thread common to all three stories: When it comes to protecting the nation’s secrets, there has been a singular lack of attention to the old-fashioned basics of security.

    It was a typical morning in early 1983 at the top-security ***Navy Intelligence Support Center*** (NISC) just outside Washington where hundreds of analyists spend their working lives sorting and evaluating a vast assortment of raw data that flows in daily from America’s worldwide intelligence network. In a cramped, second-floor office filled with gunmetal-gray cabinets and files, Samuel Loring Morison, a 39-year-old analyst in the surface-ship division, was in the middle of an hour-long conversation with his London editors about material to be included in the next edition of the authoritative Jane’s Fighting Ships for which he served as a part-time U.S. editor. Although moonlighting on government time is discouraged in most parts of the intelligence community for security reasons, Morison’s work for Jane’s during office hours had the Navy’s tacit approval.

    As Morison talked on the overseas phone, ***Jonathan Jay Pollard***, an intense, 28-year-old analyst sitting two desks away, pored over intelligence files on the newest class of Soviet missile cruisers. A year earlier, Pollard had made a fateful decision. He would spy for Israel and fulfill a long-held fantasy. Had Pollard wished to launch his espionage career at this point, he could have packed any number of secrets into his briefcase and strolled unmolested past the security guards at the door of the typically nondescript suburban office building.

    Symptoms of a lax system

    Morison and Pollard – both of whom were to be convicted of espionage, albeit under vastly different circumstances – offer a microcosm of the flaccid security procedures permeating the NISC, where the Pollard counterintelligence fiasco began. The NISC’s laissez-faire attitude toward guarding its secrets is hardly an isolated case: Sources say a number of intelligence facilities in the Washington area suffer similar lapses.

    “There are whole buildings like that out there,” says a senior counterintelligence expert. “They have got to tighten up everywhere — from the government agencies to Capitol Hill to the entire system. Look at Walker, Whitworth and the other Navy spies. Look at the Marines in the Moscow embassy.”

    ***Seemingly bored with missile cruisers, Pollard at one point got up from his desk and strolled down to the first floor to visit the electronic-systems division where he chatted*** with ****a 58-year-old electronics engineer**** about the latest advances in Soviet naval-weapons radar. Strewn across the engineer’s desk were the usual folders of highly classified data, but locked away inside his personal files, ***according to Bill Dworin, the Los Angeles police detective who later arrested him, was a large collection of child pornography.***

    Slipping through the screen

    ****The 58-year-old pedophile**** was a member of several child-sex networks, including the ***London-based Pedophile Information Exchange and the Childhood Sensuality Circle in San Diego***. Moreover, even a modestly thorough background check would have revealed that he had a 30-year history of molesting his two stepdaughters, his two natural daughters and his grandchildren.***

    ***In short, he was a textbook example of a prime security risk for blackmail by East-bloc agents, yet when the Defense Investigative Service conducted his background screening in 1981 for his top-secret clearances, it failed to detect any hint of his perverse history. They did not attempt to interview his estranged common-law wife of two decades, nor his daughters and stepdaughters who by this time were young adults undergoing therapy. The women hated their incestuous husband and father and would have willingly revealed the truth. U.S. News agreed, at Navy request, not to report the man’s identity or whereabouts in prison because of threats of violence.***

    Easy Come, easy go
    Looking out on all this from a nearby desk in the NISC offices was a 33-year-old aeronautical engineer and Strategic Air Command veteran named David Huff – a Woody Allen look-alike with a mind that functioned like John Le Carre’s. What the security-conscious Huff had seen in his two years in the easy-come, easy-go world of the NISC — and which was later confirmed by several other sources — disturbed him profoundly.

    Although the center was required to function on the traditional need-to-know basis, staffers were routinely permitted access to classified information for beyond their job requirements. Control at the entrances and exits of the building was so lax that on frequent occasions anyone could walk out carrying large amounts of classfied information in a briefcase without so much as a single guard’s doing more than wave good night. One day, Huff returned from lunch and found the rear door unguarded while people carrying briefcases and packages flowed in and out as easily as if it were the local supermarket. Angrily, Huff summoned a security supervisor, but it was several minutes before the missing guard finally ambled back to his post, eating a fried-egg sandwich. Access to the most sensitive inner areas of the center was supposed to be tightly controlled. But one day Huff looked up from his desk and saw a janitor without the correct clearances peering over his shoulder as he worked on top-secret material. On another occasion, he spotted and reported a young sailor with no clearance at all wandering around in a sensitive inner sanctum. After one employee resigned, a top-secret manual on a new tape of Soviet missile system was found to be missing. But the reaction of the NISC supervisors, says Huff, was studied nonchalance rather than deep concern.

    In short, the NISC, a prime target for any Soviet agent, was a security sieve. “Between 1981 and 1984, the NISC was a giant chef’s salad of data available to everybody,” Huff recalls. “There was a massive cross-fertilization of people who had no obvious need to know things. There was a massive hemorrhage of classified material leaving the building. The security apparatus was neutralized and ineffective and not reacting, and there were ominous signs that there had been security compromises.”

    Acknowledging the Navy is “the most aggrieved service in the recent history of espionage and
    security failures,” Rear Adm. William O. Studeman, director of naval intelligence, promises that security reforms will make Suitland “the proto-typical high-security naval complex of the future.” But it’s hard to imagine how things could have been so bad for so long. Worrisome as the lax procedures were, the potential security risks among Huff’s colleagues were equally disturbing.

    Nips and naps
    One, Huff says and the Navy admits, was an alcoholic whose regular vodka-martini lunch was fortified throughout the afternoon with surreptitious nips of wine. Supervisors did nothing when the employee, who has since left, was found in the bathroom passed out in a drunken stupor. Another staffer, the Navy concedes, was an out-of-the-closet gay activist who somehow managed to retain his security clearance in apparent contradiction of traditional security procedures. And then there was ***the secret pedophile*** who, like Pollard, ***held sensitive compartmented information clearances that allowed him access to technical intelligence above the top-secret level and who used his credentials to enter secure areas of the Pentagon and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration on weekends.***

    ***Using special color copying machines, he reproduced scores, perhaps hundreds, of child-sex photographs to share with fellow pedophiles***, according to Dr. Ray Cameron, a police psychologist who helped prosecute the man. ***In August, 1983, while in California*** on a mission involving the ***supersecret Stealth-aircraft development and Soviet radar capabilities***, the pedophile was arrested on charges of having sex with an 11-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy. He later admitted the offenses and was sentenced to ***eight years in prison.***

    When the pedophile was arrested, he was found to have a large number of top-secret documents in his possession — yet another security breach. So highly classified was the material that it took two teams of Navy security agents with different clearances to debrief him and retrieve the documents.

    ***On his regular California Stealth trips, says Cameron, the pedophile would meet with a convicted child-sex felon, stay at the home of a foreign couple involved in pedophilia, visit nude beaches frequented by child-sex advocates and abuse children.*** None of this activity was ever discerned by the Navy’s security network. The Defense Investigative Service would not comment.

    How could it happen?
    ***Asked how the pedophile’s pass record and overt behavior could go undetected for so long in a supposedly secure environment, a senior naval-intelligence official shakes his head. “It’s amazing that somebody didn’t realize that from the other [Soviet] side,” he mutters. “It’s totally incredible how we could have hired him in the first place and then been so lax in adequately investigating him.”***

    ***Indeed, the system was so primitive that six months after the pedophile’s arrest, which even was published in the newspapers, a routine DIS check of federal agencies’ files, including those in the FBI, turned up nothing.***

    The “bright but flaky” Pollard
    The pedophile may have slipped through the security cracks until his arrest by Los Angeles and San Diego police, but at least Navy investigators can claim that it was they who finally cracked down on Morison and charged him with espionage for giving three satellite photographs of a Soviet aircraft carrier to Jane’s Defence Weekly. He was charged under the 1917 Espionage Act. [Morison is appealing his conviction, and numerous media organizations, including U.S. News, have, filed a friend-of- the-court brief, arguing that the act does not apply when classified information is leaked to the press.]

    As for Pollard, he developed a reputation within the NISC organization as “bright but flaky.” And when the opportunity arose to get rid of him, his superiors jumped on it. In June, 1984, he was transferred to the newly formed Anti-Terrorism Alert Center in the neighboring Naval Investigative Service, where he immediately began spying in earnest. But it was at the NISC where Pollard first spotted the “holes,” as he later described them to federal agents, in the Navy’s security system. And it was at the NISC where he started collecting the first cache of top-secret documents that he presented to his Israeli handler at their second meeting to establish his espionage bona fides.

    For Huff, the gross security lapses became something of an obsession. He tried to blow the whistle on the lax system, and, when his complaints, lodged through normal channels, were unheeded, he carried his frustrations to the Navy inspector general’s office.

    When nothing was done there, Huff quit the NISC in 1984 and returned to his home in Florida. Back at the NISC, however, security procedures continued to drift in their casual way until Pollard was arrested in November, 1985, and told his interrogators where and how he had gotten his start in the espionage business. “A lot has been learned,” says a senior naval-security official in evident frustration, “but have improvements been implemented? The new Navy security manual has yet to be printed.”

    The lesson is clear: Unless the U.S. learns to protect its intelligence assets more vigilantly, the spies may not leave many secrets worth protecting.
    □ by Michael Satchell with Gillian Sandtord and Rene Riley
    ****

    The unnamed 58-year-old Navy engineer spy who was a PIE member and colleague of famous Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard was Elmer Donald Woodward
    [See next Comment]

  10. Troyhand says:

    https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/98674NCJRS.pdf

    [Page 6]

    TESTIMONY OF BRUCE SELCRAIG, STAFF INVESTIGATOR,
    PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

    Mr. SELCRAIG. Mr. Chairman, throughout the subcommittee’s year-long investigation of child pornography and pedophilia, and during our hearings last November, we heard about the existence of certain child sex rings and pedophile organizations operating in America. We have this morning two charts which trace the national and international connections of three separate groups involved in child pornography and child molestation.

    Our next witness, Joseph Henry, was actively involved in one of these groups. Viewfinder, Inc., of St. Petersburg, FL, shown at the top of the chart, was a nationwide ring organized by Eric Cross which shared child pornography among its members.

    Allegedly Cross was so brazen as to continue his child pornography mailing operation while in the Florida State Prison while supposedly assisting prosecutors who are investigating child pornography cases.

    The second ring on the chart is the Childhood Sensuality Circle of San Diego. We heard testimony concerning this group at our hearing in November. During that hearing, we heard that CSC, which is run by an 84-year-old woman named Valida Davila, is ostensibly a group that advocates sexual liberation for persons of all ages. Our investigation showed that at least 30 CSC members from around the country have been arrested on child sex charges and that in practice, CSC developed into little more than a contact service for pedophiles. By meeting other pedophiles through membership in CSC, child molesters have been able to acquire new victims. CSC and Viewfinder, Inc., are also connected through associations of their members and, as shown on the chart, through their connections to ***Donald Woodward***, who we have interviewed at length in prison.

    ***Woodward, who lived in Alexandria, VA, and had a high security clearance with the Navy, traveled to San Diego several times a year to molest children. He had met these children through contacts in CSC in California.*** Woodward is now in a California prison.

    [At this point in the hearing, Senator Chiles withdrew from the hearing room.]

    Mr. SELCRAIG. The third group on the chart focused on an individual named John Duncan. Our next witness, Joseph Henry, was a member of this group and first contacted Duncan by mail in October 1975 about finding children.

    These three groups are connected by the associations of Eric Cross and Valida Davila with John Duncan and Joseph Henry, as shown by the red line.

    If you look at the lower half of this chart, Senators, you will see that the different colors indicate the relationship of the children to the men who molested them. In several cases, these were the natural or adopted children of the molesters who were treated among members of the sex ring.

    Under Duncan’s name, you will see that he controlled Tammy, Lisa and Yvonne. He wrote Joe Henry, our next witness, about these children, and Mr. Henry will testify that when he did finally come out to California from his home in New York City to meet with Duncan, that he did, indeed, molest these three children.

    You can see from the other chart that the John Duncan ring involved at least 14 men from 4 States and 2 foreign countries. When you take a close look at this chart, you will see how these children were passed among these pedophiles. Tammy, for example, who was controlled by Duncan, ww molested by at least 12 different men. Though this may appear to be a large network, I feel certain that, if we developed each case, these associations would branch out further than we could ever represent on just one chart.

    The pedophile network in the United States, although informal, is nonetheless far-reaching and composed of groups structured just like this. There are doubtless several groups like this operating today.

    That concludes my comments about these charts.
    ***

  11. Troyhand says:

    http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=feST4K8J0scC&dat=19830805&printsec=frontpage&hl=en
    St. Petersburg Times – Aug 5, 1983
    Child-porn probe is expanding
    Florida case linked to 4 other states

    The investigation into an alleged child-pornography operation at Avon Park Correctional Institution has been tied to the arrests of two men on the Pacific Coast and seizures of child pornography in four states, authorities say.

    And the far-reaching investigation is just unfolding, according to U.S. Senate Labor and Human Resources investigator Jay Howell. “The investigation is ongoing and expected to produce additional results,” he said.

    Howell began the case this spring when he received confidential information alleging that Mervyn Harold Eric Cross, who has been convicted of child molesting, was involved in a child-pornography operation, making telephone calls and reviewing pictures from the Avon Park prison.

    “Unfortunately, the specific activities inside the Avon Park Correctional Institution were only the tip of the iceberg,” U.S. Sen, Paula Hawkins, R-Fla., said Thursday.

    “Since our investigation began, search warrants have been executed in Seattle, Wash., Alexandria, Va., Albuquerque, N.M. and two separate locations in California. Two individuals have been arrested. . .”

    She called it a “loose association” that is “truly an interstate and international ring.”

    THE TWO MEN arrested are Robert Lodge, a Seattle schoolteacher who was listed as a director in a business authorities say Cross set up, and ***Donald Woodward, a Navy engineer who lives in Alexandria. Woodward was arrested in San Diego.***

    In addition, Albuquerque authorities say they have confiscated pornographic photographs of children and 2,500 videotapes at the home of a man they identified as ***B. Skinner.*** Sgt. Cliff Jenkins said Skinner was one of Cross’ “business associates,” but he would not elaborate. He said Skinner has not been arrested.

    PAGE 10-A
    Cross, the British-born inmate whom authorities have described as a “super con man,” has not been charged with additional crimes. Prison authorities have moved him from Avon Park to maximum-security Florida State Prison near Starke. A Department of Corrections report on the case is expected to be completed next week.

    Authorities said that not all of the people under investigation in the four states besides Florida are directly tied to Cross. All, however, were identified after Hawkins and Howell began their investigation into activities at Avon Park.

    [B]HOWELL SAID the confidential information he received about Cross also revealed that Seattle junior high schoolteacher Lodge was a business associate of Cross’. Lodge is listed as a director of Viewfinder Inc., a Florida corporation that lists St. Petersburg as its headquarters. The president of the company is listed as David J. Massey, an alias that authorities say Cross has used.

    Lodge has no previous record, but Seattle police, acting on information supplied by Howell, searched Lodge’s house in late May. Detective Tom Dittmar said police found 20,000 pictures, including many photographs of nude children involved in sexual acts. Lodge has been arrested on several pornography charges, including conspiracy to distribute child pornography, and is awaiting trial.

    Authorities also say Seattle police recovered many letters and a list of “child-lovers.” It was from the list that authorities in Seattle and Los Angeles have been conducting their investigations.

    ***Los Angeles Detective William Dworin, using the name “Pete Davis,” began corresponding with Woodward, the Alexandria engineer. In court documents filed in Virginia, Dworin said he sent Woodward a picture of a nude 10-year-old girl. Woodward responded, Dworin said, by sending several pictures of nude young girls and bragging that he had instructed his daughters and granddaughters in “educational games.”***

    ***WHEN WOODWARD left for California on a Navy-sponsored business trip at the end of July, Dworin wrote to Alexandria authorities and Woodward’s house in the city’s Old Town section was searched July 28. Authorities recovered boxes of photographs, 14 reels of film, five undeveloped rolls of film and two cameras.***

    ***Woodward, who according to the court documents had told Dworin he was going to attend a “kiddie porn festival” in California and said he knew of young girls there with whom he could have sex, was arrested in San Diego, also on July 28. He was charged with three counts of child molesting.***

    Prison officials in Florida, meanwhile, continue to investigate Cross’ activities at Avon Park. A Tampa modeling agency owner and a Tampa photographer have said they were duped into persuading seven young girls from the Tampa Bay area to pose nude for photographs that later went to Cross.

    Cross had been posing as a British movie producer looking for girls to star in a movie called Susan’s Magic Carpet.

    In a letter to the St. Petersburg Times received Monday, Cross said that the scheme was something he was doing for out-of-state investigators and that he was not involved in the child-pornography business.

    Authorities in Seattle will not say whether the pictures of the Tampa Bay girls had been sent to Lodge. Although he has been charged with conspiracy, others allegedly involved in the scheme have not been named.
    ***

  12. Troyhand says:

    http://openjurist.org/928/f2d/1030/united-states-v-cross
    UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
    v.
    Mervyn Harold CROSS a/k/a Eric Cross, and Robert Carter
    Lodge, Defendants-Appellants.
    April 16, 1991.

    10. In 1980, Cross recruited Lodge for a scheme that involved sending obscene materials through the mail. Several years earlier, Cross had begun communicating with ****Elmer Donald Woodward**** concerning “their mutual interest in child pornography.” On several occasions, Woodward mailed to Cross the negatives of obscene photographs of a seven-year old California girl and her younger brother. Cross indicated to Woodward that Lodge could develop the pictures for a reasonable fee, and offered to pay for the film processing himself if he also could receive a set of prints. Cross subsequently arranged for his attorney to mail the Woodward negatives to Lodge. Both the negatives and black and white prints of the photos were later discovered during a search of Lodge’s home in May 1983.

    At the time of trial, Woodward was in prison in California, serving sentences for two related sex offenses

    Although Cramer did provide the Department with copies of several of Woodward’s California photographs, these were different photos than the ones sent to Lodge. Moreover, as with the Tampa photos, no government official was informed of or approved Cross’s mailing of the California photos to Lodge, although Cross had given Lodge’s and Woodward’s names to several law enforcement agents

    We must note, however, that the court is disturbed by the somewhat careless and slipshod fashion in which government agents dealt with Cross, who even then was a notorious confidence artist
    ****

  13. Troyhand says:

    http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/NudistHallofShame/Woodward.html
    DONALD WOODWARD WAS CONVICTED FOR CHILD MOLESTATION.

    WOODWARD WAS AN ACTIVE NUDST.

    HE IS *NOT* ON THE American Sunbathing Association CAUTION LIST.

    ***Donald Woodward served eight years in prison for sexually molesting several children from Camping Bares, a naturist group in San Diego***. He was part of the child pornography and prostitution ring that Wilcox, Hoston, Duncan, Henry and many others were involved in. Woodward was a friend of Jefferson Clittlick Freedom. See also Eric Cross.
    ****

  14. Troyhand says:

    http://www.patentbuddy.com/Inventor/Woodward-Elmer-D/9441378
    Elmer D Woodward
    Inventor

    Inventor Addresses
    Alexandria, VA Jan 06, 81 – Jan 06, 81
    Los Altos, CA Sep 17, 91 – Sep 17, 91

    Technology
    # of Patents
    F42B: EXPLOSIVE CHARGES, e.g. FOR BLASTING; FIREWORKS; AMMUNITION 1
    H01Q: AERIALS 2

    Patents / Publication # / Year of Publication / Title
    5,049,883 1991 Combined microwave and infrared chaff
    4,243,991 1981 Antenna feed for scan-with-compensation tracking

    ***


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s