PIE and the Gay Left in Britain – The Account by Lucy Robinson – plus various articles newly online

The following is the passage from Lucy Robinson, Gay Men and the Left in Post-War Britain: How the Personal got Political (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2011), pp. 129-139, dealing with the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Whilst not without some errors (for example misdating the foundation of PIE as 1975 rather than 1974, and confusing the British National Party – not founded until 1982 – with the National Front), and also glossing over feminist and lesbian paedophilia or pro-paedophilia, this is an important and relatively comprehensive account. In the footnotes reproduced at the end, where possible I have given a link to the material in question when it is available online; in other cases I have uploaded it at the bottom of this post itself

I intend soon to complete a comprehensive bibliography of books, articles and newspaper pieces relating to PIE.


Testing times and uneasy alliances: Gay Left and the Paedophile Information Exchange

The [Gay Left] Collective’s theoretical approaches can be best assessed when tested against actual campaigns. Single-issue based campaigns continued to make unity difficult and this was particularly true of the campaigns that the Collective became involved in around PIE. By looking at the issues around PIE and the campaigns that defended it, it is possible to see how transferable Gay Left’s approaches were. This is not to say that there is an easy correlation between homosexual and paedophile experience or desire, instead it is a way of seeing how paedophile self-organisation developed with a full consciousness of the history of the gay liberation movement.

PIE coincided with the Collective’s need for a campaign through which to impact the world. The second issue of Gay Left included a letter from Roger Moody. He called for an analysis of paedophiles’ transgressive role in society, solidarity between different identity groups and a revolutionary model of sexual behaviour. [50]. From its third issue PIE ran adverts in Gay Left. Issue 7 of the journal was entitled ‘Happy Families – paedophilia examined’. Members of the Collective saw PIE, and the campaigns around it, as a new battlefield from which to extend sexual liberation. Conservative anxiety had switched its focus from homosexuality to paedophilia, so it seemed as though the lines of defence should too. Bob Cant and Steven Gee specifically addressed these issues in Homosexuality, Power and Politics. Kenneth Plummer also became involved in the debate contributing to a number of collections on the subject. [51] In acknowledgment, the chairman of PIE, Tom O’Carroll, thanks Plummer in his introduction to Paedophilia – the Radical Case. Whilst not supporters or advocates of paedophilia, the Collective argued that discussion around paedophilia and PIE could be used to challenge the idea that sexuality was ‘pre-given determined and firm’ as well as to open up debates on child sexuality. [52] However this proved to be a gross over-estimation of both society’s position on paedophilia, and of paedophilia as a political issue. The following section of this chapter explains how a paedophile identity developed in the wake of the gay liberation movement and why Plummer and others in the Gay Left Collective were overly optimistic in their assessment.

Saying the unspeakable: PIE’s development in context

As with GLF et al., paedophile self-organisation developed in an international context. In both Europe and the United States paedophiles felt that they were on the receiving end of increased aggression and also felt that they had the potential to organise against it. [53] The first UK based group was Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL) some of whom had been involved in the GLF. PAL published the newsletter Palaver. This group were singled out in the Sunday People campaign that labelled them ‘the vilest men in Britain’ on 25 May 1975. PAL were exposed as the enemy within. Although the article contained no allegation of actual sexual assault it made it clear that PAL members represented an evil that every parent must be warned about. The manner in which the article was researched, and the treatment of those it accused was so severe that both the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) and Gay News acted as advocates and witnesses for the PAL members. The advocates were threatened themselves. PAL’s closure was inevitable and it eventually ‘tottered to death’ in 1977. [54]

PIE, PAL’s most successful counterpart, was formed by three members of the Scottish Minorities Group. Their postal address remained that of the Group’s Glasgow headquarters. Having learnt many lessons from its early roots, PIE took its remit beyond that of support for individuals; they were the first to attempt a collective identity for paedophiles. [55] PIE began in October 1975. By November 1975 it is recorded as having 100 members. By 1977 this had risen to 250. At its peak, membership reached 450. [56] However, by the end of 1979 PIE was effectively over. Like PAL before them, tabloid exposés, this time in the News of the World and the Daily Star, precipitated its demise. All that remained were court cases and newspaper coverage, leaving the Left and the liberation movements struggling for positions. [57] On the way a number of contradictions and unmaintainable legacies were exposed.

PIE first gained public attention after The International Conference of Love and Attraction, organised by Mark Cook, and convened by Kevin Howells and Tom O’Carroll. The title of the conference, and PIE’s publicity, concentrated on paedophilia as a way of describing emotions not actions – a distinction that made little difference to the reactions that confronted them. In reality, the conference proved just how far paedophilia stood from the brink of liberation. College authorities ejected O’Carroll from the building and he was beaten in the face. Protesters also beat Daily Telegraph reporter Gerard Kemp, and Richard McCance, General Secretary of the counselling group Friend, whose appeals to the police were ignored. Elsewhere unions organised against PIE holding meetings on their premises. [58]

In today’s contemporary climate any rational public discourse relating to paedophilia seems increasingly unmanageable. [59] For a brief period however, the campaign surrounding PIE offered a possibility of learning from the GLF’s mistakes and of pushing the liberational agenda into its third and most radical stage. In the process PIE’s contradictory position was exposed. On the one hand PIE made Wolfenden type appeals to professionalism, whilst at the same time it spoke to an audience who were increasingly informed by the counter-culture’s Do It Yourself values.

O’Carroll fostered GLF’s shared history in his account of PIE’s development. The Conference was justified as an act of ‘coming out’, the first stage of liberational development. GLF veterans acted as stewards for a PIE meeting in Red Lion Square meeting in 1977 [60] and the International Gay Association made a public statement supporting PIE. [61] O’Carroll tightened the relationship between the two by concentrating on the organisational ties. By melding PAL into PIE, PIE inherited roots as a break away group from the South London GLF. He argued that PIE was one of the ‘radical blooms’ that sprouted from the ‘flourishing phenomenon’ of gay liberation. 62] This appealed to those who, following the attainment of certain concessions, were searching for a new radicalism with which to challenge wider social structures. The book produced from the conference, Adult Sexual Interest in Children, was designed to provide the factual basis for a ‘cooler and more reasoned’ approach to the issue. [63] Like the earlier GLF publications, it directed its iconoclasm at Freud and psychiatry as a whole and tried to undermine categorisation itself. It combined this with a Wolfenden style ‘rational’ argument suggesting that society’s solutions were more dangerous than the problem. [64] This double-pronged attempt to combine liberation and reform was not enough to alter paedophilia’s position. Twenty years later the News of the World still referred to this book as ‘vile’. [65]

Like the earlier homosexual law reform campaigns PIE’s immediate goals were to provide support and to collate and disseminate information. [66] In terms of support, PIE wanted to alleviate the isolation, guilt, secrecy and anguish associated with paedophilia as well as to dispel the myths surrounding it. As with reformist support organisations such as the Albany Trust, PIE used contact advertisements, magazine publication and letter writing to breakdown the strong sense of isolation felt by its members. [67] From the start PIE explained that alongside individual and collective support it wanted to educate the wider world. When PIE announced its launch in the C.H.E. Bulletin, it explained that its initial goal was the organisation of information to act as a resource. [68] It produced Perspectives on Paedophilia, which combined sympathetic research with an educational role, aimed at professionals who worked with paedophiles. PIE argued that, like homosexuals earlier, self-oppression and fear of the law meant that paedophiles felt they had no choice but to accept chemical castration or aversion therapy. [69] PIE also tried to counter the unequal distribution of sentences experienced by paedophiles. The realities of paedophile criminality meant that paedophiles received severe sentences for their first offence, suffered frequent attacks from other prisoners once in prison, and had to be placed on ‘Rule 43’. [70] Perspectives on Paedophilia reappraised psychiatric models and offered a variety of self-help alternatives to challenge the tradition façade of a choice between either treatment or punishment. [71]

In 1975, PIE made a submission to the Home Office Criminal Law Review Committee on the age of consent. In the submission, the connection between PIE’s case and the Wolfenden Report was made explicit. The submission directly quoted the Report to support PIE’s argument. [72] In reaction to the existing laws, which treated infants and adolescents the same, the main body of the submission outlined a convoluted set of age divisions as an alternative to the mechanistic age of consent. Briefly these were: Firstly, that there was no possibility of consent under the age of four years old. Then, between the ages of four and nine a parent or responsible adult should be qualified to indicate in court cases whether or not they believed the child to be able to communicate consent. The remaining years, ten to seventeen, should be treated with minimal intervention providing the child is of normal development. There should be no division between assessment of heterosexual or homosexual cases. [73] This caused considerable controversy. There had been a certain amount of debate surrounding the upper ages of consent, particularly within lesbian and gay communities. Some young people began to take the liberation movements at their word, and Kidz Lib started organising around young people’s own rights and sexual freedom. But, PIE found there was little support [end p. 131] for their plan to lower the age of consent so dramatically. Even within PIE there was little chance of publicly defending sexual contact with the younger age groups. Few in PIE would admit to interest in sexual activity with those under adolescence, which is reiterated in studies of paedophiles generally. [74] PIE had hoped to gain a level of legitimacy through the submission. However, Home Office acceptance of PIE’s submission did not extend to any sympathy for individual members. In 1979 the Home Office ensured that Steven Smith, a PIE member who was employed by a subcontractor working at the Home Office, was removed from his job. [75]

Impossible collaborations: PIE’s attempts at entryism

PIE developed its own form of entryism. In order to build alliances with other identity groups, it tried to make connections with various liberal, professional and liberational organisations. PIE contacted amongst others, GaySocs, Gay News, the National Association of Youth Officers, Peace News, groups of trainee social workers, Release, Probation Services, NCLCC, MIND as well as academic departments. The contradictory and arbitrary divisions in British law around age meant that campaigns around paedophilia fed into a variety of issues relating to young men and women. This was particularly fostered in the Gay Youth Movement, with whom PIE made public statements of solidarity. [76]

Compared with today’s possibilities, PIE was remarkably successful in building alliances. For example, its overtures to social workers’ professional organisations culminated in a four page ‘non-judgmental and neutral’ article in the trade paper Community Care. The article, ‘Should We Pity the Paedophile?’ by Mary Manning, was published in Autumn 1977. It was illustrated with stills from Death in Venice and alluded to paedophilia’s historically and culturally constructed meaning. When the Manning article described Tom O’Carroll as ‘a likeable and gentle young man who has an ongoing interest in social history’, Manning constructed a version of O’Carroll appealing to both the empathetic and the academic. [77]

Some organisations resisted any involvement with PIE. Bristol University’s Vice Chancellor refused PIE’s offer to provide a speaker for the Department of Social Planning. In the end the request was hypothetical, as the speaker had been sent to prison by the time the proposed date arrived. The National Association of Probation Officers took a similar approach. [78] Whereas other organisations were loosely supportive, but withdrew their support when they were confronted with either the reality of PIE’s beliefs or society’s reaction to them. Although the NCCL challenged the State’s right to intervene in post-pubescent sex, it did not directly support the PIE. A fierce internal debate ensued when PIE targeted the NCCL and applied for membership. Eventually the proposal was rejected at the organisation’s annual general meeting. Similarly, Christian Wolmar described his amazement when he joined the staff of Release in 1976 and found that they were providing a mailing address for PIE. Wolmar raised the issue at a collective meeting. A member of PIE was invited to come and justify its position. It appeared that any vague sense of commonality dissipated when faced with the perceived weakness and realities of PIE’s argument. Apparently, PIE’s ambassador talked about ‘the joy of sex with children’ and argued that there should be no age of consent. Following this meeting, Release stopped providing PIE with any resources. Wolmar was sure that if the relationship had continued for a few more months it would have coincided with the News of the World exposé and Release would have lost its Home Office funding. [79]

The real twist in the story of PIE’s attempted entryism into the rainbow coalition of liberal and liberational groups, was that PIE had been infiltrated itself, more than once. In 1977 André Thorne attended a few PIE meetings. He stole some completed membership forms, which he used to try and blackmail a highly placed PIE member. The proposed victim went to the police and Thorne was found guilty of blackmail. [80] Whilst the judge at the trial described the information in Thorne’s possession as ‘potential dynamite’, a widespread exposé did not follow. This time the only charges brought were against the infiltrator. The next series of events had far graver implications for PIE. Charles Oxley, a grandfather and headmaster, joined PIE under the pseudonym David Charlton. He had aroused some suspicions from fellow PIE members, but they had appreciated his willingness to help and he attended two executive committee meetings. He then took a number of stories to the News of the World. [81] Although none of Oxley’s accusations constituted actual criminal activity, based on his research the tabloid published the names and photographs of seven PIE members on 25 June 1978. This built on the earlier Daily Star campaign, which had named and photographed four members. [83] Following the articles, PIE could no loner find a sympathetic printer for its newssheet MAGPIE. [84] As the furore ensued, O’Carroll lost his job as a press officer for the Open University. [85] The police pre-empted the News of the World exposé by a day. The police had previously raided O’Carroll’s home, but it was this second search that resulted in arrest. [86] O’Carroll was arrested along with three other PIE members, John Parratt, David Trevor Wade and Michael Dagnall. [87]

When PIE members found themselves in court, their attempts at entryism blossomed into co-ordinated support. As with the Angry Brigade and the GLF, prosecutions built shared campaigns. The nature of the charge was central to the ways in which gay and left campaigners were able to organise support for PIE. Along with Oxley, the police had been unable to find any hard evidence of actual sexual abuse of children. They were charged with postal offences and the common law offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals over contact advertisements in Magpie. [88] PIE’s defence at the trial rested on the argument that their function was to campaign for the recognition of the feelings of paedophiles and that this was not the same as sanctioning sex with children. To an extent, the prosecution concurred. The prosecution did not attempt to prove that PIE advocated breaking the law through sex with minors; instead they relied on statements and publications from PIE to demonstrate the conspiracy. Similarly both the defence and prosecution agreed on the ‘pathetic nature’ of the defendants. [89] The first trial resulted in one defendant being acquitted and the jury unable to agree on the others. Following a retrial, Tom O’Carroll was convicted and sentenced to two years. [90]

Beyond the trials initiated by Oxley against O’Carroll et al., a series of further charges were brought against PIE members, which resulted in guilty verdicts relating to conspiracy, obscenity and postal offences. As with the earlier accusations these prosecutions were not directly related to actual sexual offences against children. [91] However, public concerns following an attack on a six-year-old boy in Brighton [92] and two girls in Plymouth fed into the perception of PIE as dangerous. [93] Calls to ban PIE increased and the Department of Public Prosecutions opened a new dossier that included a ‘long list’ of its members’ names. [94] Leon Brittan, the new Home Secretary, made his presence known when he pre-empted one series of convictions by condemning the ‘views’ of PIE’s members. He argued that the public ‘rightly expect[ed] criminal law in this field to be effective’. [95] PIE’s argument that it was organising around the category of paedophile rather than in favour of child-abuse, was once more proved an irrelevant distinction. According to Parliament and the lower-courts, there was no paedophile identity that could be extracted from actual offences against children. Faced with this onslaught, PIE came under increasing attack. Members were evicted from their homes, groups lost the use of postal addresses and Midland Bank closed PIE’s bank account. [96] O’Carroll blamed a lack of rational debate and thought that public perceptions of paedophilia were a sign of an undeveloped society. [97] However the reasons that PIE failed went beyond timing.

A campaign too far: defensive projects for paedophilia

The type of charges brought against the PIE members and the type of people who pushed for the prosecutions, meant that sections of the Left and of the gay movement felt that they should support PIE. PIE had been attacked from two related directions, the conspiracy laws and Right. Oz, International Times and Gay Circle had all been prosecuted for the same charge. The Angry Brigade trial had showed how in particular political climates the law read loose links between groups and communications between individuals as conspiracy. Sheila Rowbotham recognised this when she explained that ‘[h]istorically the use of the notoriously vague offence of “conspiracy” has always been a sure sign that the British state was in one of its spasms of insecure authoritarianism’. [98]

The PIE prosecutions played out the relationship between the State, mainstream morality and the far-Right. Mary Whitehouse and the National Festival of Light, who had perennially attacked the counter-cultural and gay movements, spearheaded the campaign against PIE. [99] In August 1977 the Daily Mirror launched a ‘hysterical campaign’ against PIE. [100] This led to dramatic events at a public PIE meeting at Red Lion Square on 19 August. [101] The meeting was besieged by the British National Party and the British Movement who attacked; chanting ‘Kill them, Kill them’. [102] This ‘fascist violence’ was reported in the press the next day as the ‘fury of the mothers’. [103] In this context it was difficult for ‘”movement” people not to be drawn into sympathy with PIE on the old basis of “your enemy’s enemy is my friend”’. [104] After all, organisation against the far-Right had apparently been successful in attracting the young to leftist orientated events like Rock Against Racism carnivals.

Gay and Left supporters stand up . . .

In 1974 C.H.E. made statements of solidarity with PIE at its annual conference and included adverts for the group in its Bulletin, although C.H.E. frequently related paedophilia to heterosexuality rather than homosexuality. [105] IN 1975, the People implicated C.H.E. in its exposé of PAL. The broadsheet press picked up on the link, leading to concerns within C.H.E.’s rank and file over whether the issue of paedophilia had been brought onto the agenda as a ‘cause célèbre’. [106] In fact the issue had been publicly discussed at a number of C.H.E. conferences and it had been decided that C.H.E. would hold no active position on paedophilia, PAL or PIE. Although the tactic had not worked for the defendants in court, C.H.E. was able to negotiate a level of removed support of PIE by separating paedophile identity from paedophile activity. In 1983, the C.H.E. annual conference passed a resolution vehemently condemning ‘all violent attacks on children’ whilst upholding PIE’s right to ‘freedom of speech and organisation’. In so doing C.H.E. was attempting to reject the conflation of child-abuse and paedophilia. [107]

The Albany Trust’s support of PIE had more significant implications. As part of the first phase of PIE’s development, it had produced a booklet published by the Albany Trust. [108] Despite Grey’s eloquent discussion of the complexities of paedophile defence, in 1993 he still felt the need to explain the relationship between the Albany Trust and the PIE. He described a series of ‘private discussions about the counselling needs of paedophiles’. However this alone was enough to give impetus to a smear campaign by ‘moral monopolists’. Like C.H.E., both the Trust and Grey personally, were accused of ‘supporting child abuse’. The old adversary, the National Festival of Light described the Albany Trust as a ‘related body’ to PIE. [109] Although Grey made the distinction between the groups clear, the Trust paid a heavy price for its supposed connections with PIE and received the sanction that Wolmar had feared would be brought against Release. The Trust lost its public funding. [110] Even in Grey’s later account of the events he has to explicitly distance himself from personal ‘sexual interest in children’ in order to discuss the matter at all. [111] The fait accompli was such that any discussion of society’s treatment of paedophiles was assumed to have a personal motivation.

Alongside gay organisations, a broad based leftist alliance stepped in to protest against the ‘show trial’ that attacked the ‘freedom to communicate and organise’. [112] The Campaign Against Public Morals (CAPM) formed around the trial in an attempt to coalesce wide reaching support and published Paedophilia and Public Morals. [113] It argued that there should be no crime without a victim, CAPM asked, ‘Have YOU ever held radical views? Have YOU ever campaigned for social change? Because if you have it could be YOUR turn next’. [114] A number of groups answered in the affirmative: IMG, the SWP, Gay Rights at Work, Gay Noise, Revolutionary [end p. 135] Youth, German Study and Working Group on Paedophilia, Gay Rights at Work, Gay Workers in Print, the Campaign against Sexist Stereotypes and the Gay Noise Collective. [115] Like Gay Left, these groups’ support of paedophilia followed the Pastor Neimöller theory. Neimöller’s poem begins ‘First they came for the communists and I did not speak out – because I was not a communist’, and then lists other groups affected by the Nazi purges, trade unionists etc and then Jews, until ‘then they came for me – and by then there was no one left to speak out for me’. In other words if the State was not stopped from persecuting paedophiles it would not be long before there were different identity or political groups in the dock. [116] Groups related to the trial as both an immediacy in itself and also as part of a bigger challenge to the law. So the order of priorities was firstly to stop the show trial and have the charges dropped and secondly to defend the right of paedophiles to organise. The magazine Outrage! Noted that the defendants had been arrested, not for any physical abuse, but for ‘what they think’. [117] Gay Noise related PIE’s experiences to issues faced by lesbian mothers, to employment rights, the right to self-organisation, manipulation of psychiatric services and the use of the police. [118] Gay Noise also explicitly linked PIE with the context of the wider gay Left. Gay Noise saw paedophilia as important in the battle to restructure the women’s and gay liberation movement, because it could offer a socialist view of child sexuality. [119] The campaign could then be extended into a rejection of state harassment of the young and the abolition of the conspiracy laws. [120]

. . . and fade away

Beyond shared experiences of the conspiracy laws and resistance to the Right there was little common ground between PIE and the groups around the CAPM. There was not enough whole-hearted support for such a contentious issue. Paedophilia was not a class issue and the simple correlation between sexuality and political radicalism was a misnomer. In fact, in one article that contained interviews with a number of paedophiles, each one was a conservative. [121] Some sections of the Left directly attacked PIE on moral grounds. Along with the Right, the unions employed at various meeting halls and conference centres were often the most vociferous campaigners against PIE. Even those who were supportive during the trial later recanted. IMG questioned whether support for PIE was appropriate, and withdrew. [122] They refused to recognise the value of PIE’s autonomy. PIE’s right to self-organise was under attack again, although this time not in order to maintain the status quo, but to justify a left-wing focus on party organisation and class.

Some of the groups that PIE tried to attach themselves to were diametrically opposed to PIE’s agenda. There had been efforts to make links between the position of women, particularly lesbians, and that of paedophiles, but much of the women’s liberation movement did not see its role as extending grown men’s sexual liberty. The CAPM had prophesied that there would be a ‘concentrated effort to split the Women’s Movement and the Gay Movement on the question on which they have been historically the weakest; paedophila and child [end p. 136] sexuality’. [123] But women such as Spare Rib’s Susan Hemmings and Bea Campbell saw any attempt to link feminism and paedophilia as opportunistic .Hemmings argued that the connection was ‘irresponsible’, whereas Campbell dismissed it as an attempt to blackmail feminists into something they did not believe in. [124] Post-WLM feminist found paedophilia an abhorrent expression of patriarchal society. Paedophilia was ‘inherently sexist’. Adult men, not women, typified these unequal and objectifying relationships. If heterosexual men’s sexuality pathologically objectified women, then paedophilia objectified children in the same way. Following the PIE trial, feminist discourse on child-abuse took precedence over the gay Left’s call for paedophile liberation. In the divorce case following the short lived romance between the women’s and gay liberation movements, the feminists gained sole custody of the children.

Keeping identities separate: the danger of homosexual and paedophile association

It was largely feminists who were given roles as children’s advocates, but the idea that the same models would work for paedophilia and homosexuality was also beign questioned. Gilbert Herdt, Professor of Human Development and Psychology at Chicago University and leading anthropologist, asked the key question: ‘[c]an you call paedophiles a minority group who form their own subculture?’ Is there a Paedophile community from which to organise social reform let alone liberation?’ [125] The variety of personal and political approaches taken by gay men suggest that there may be contention over whether a gay community exists, but let’s assume that a concept of gay community does exist, however wrought with tensions and lacking in coherence, however artificial and conscious the act of maintaining itself may be. Plummer explained that paedophiles had a less grounded sub-cultural tradition upon which to develop a collective identity. Furthermore the gay line of development from surreptitious underground, to law reform campaigners, to public declaration of liberationist intent could not be followed when the sexual activity was still illegal and initiated such outrage in the public. [126]

Many gay reactions to PIE reiterated concerns over any assumed allegiance between homosexuality and paedophilia. The relationship between PIE and Gay News was a measurement of this. Having acted as advocates for PIE in the face of the bigotry of tabloid journalism, the association had legal implications for Gay News. Yet, despite the publication’s earlier advocacy, in reality support for PAL and PIE had consisted of printing PIE’s address and the ‘occasional sympathetic article’. [127] Gay News had favourably reviewed Paedophilia: The Radical Case, but when PIE approached the magazine with a request to be included in the help lines list, they were refused. [128] W H Smith had refused to stock the magazine. Under pressure from the news-sellers and in reaction to the growing atmosphere, Gay News eventually refused to take any adverts. This exclusion from the major gay voice piece was the death-knell for PIE. [129]

It was not just Gay News that backed out of a relationship with PIE. There was a point of retreat, whereby paedophilia was dropped consciously ‘as a hot potato, too dangerous to everybody else’. [130] Gay Left’s Stephen Gee argued that homosexuals had not been, ‘sufficiently supportive [of PIE] nor have we challenged the dominant ideology childhood and child sexuality which informs this attack’. [131] PIE representative told Gay News that:

[p]olitically, PIE feel that the division between itself and the gay movement, which is acknowledge[d] as real, is in part the product of a realistic fear by the gay movement that its own gains could be jeopardised by too close a relationship with the paedophile movement. . . . We regret the alienation we feel from the gay movement and the feminist movement in this country. [132]

Homosexuality was regarded as a privilege that could be retreated back into in order to avoid taking on any stigma of association with paedophilia. A review in Gay Times in August 1997 charted this reassessment of the period:

Gay attitudes to paedophilia have undergone a transformation. In the early days of gay liberation, ‘intergenerational’ sex seemed to occupy a legitimate place on the homosexual continuum. Homosexuals were vilified and persecuted, and so were paedophiles. Denying child sexuality seemed part of the ideology of repression. But genuine anxiety about child sex abuse has hardened attitudes. Gay law reform is a serious business nowadays. We have spent decades trying to shrug off the charge that we just want to molest children. We can do without real perverts hitching a ride on the bandwagon, thank you. [133]

Yet, PIE’s entryism seems to have been perversely successful. The unshakeable assumptions pinking homosexuality with paedophilia were used to discredit the Left and liberational movements. Liberal attitudes to inter-generational sex became metaphors for concerns over sexual liberation generally, equal opportunities, union protectionism, anti-professionalism, of the ‘politically correct’ ‘gone mad’. This was particularly true of the debates and recriminations following the children’s homes’ child-abuse scandals of the 1980s where protecting gay rights was seen as a cover for the employment of paedophiles in children’s homes. [134] Whereas PIE were not directly implicated in the children’s home abuse scandals, they were the polemic expression of the ‘general tenor of the period’. [135] By 1999 Community Care published articles condemning its earlier liberal approaches to paedophilia which it associated with union monopolies stifling complaints about child sex abuse. [136]

PIE was seen as evidence of the worst excesses of the post-1968 liberation movements, especially because of the way in which it blurred distinction between adult and child.

[T]he argument that a distinction could be drawn between abuse and consensual sex with children struck a chord [because[ it was fashionable to see children as autonomous beings who should have the right to liberate themselves sexually. [137]

In PIE’s submission to the government, it presented itself as a champion of children’s rights. However this had less credibility than its expression of adult sexual liberation. The pleasure principle overrode the reality of adulthood and adult responsibility. According to David Shaffer, consultant in child psychiatry at Maudsley Hospital, ‘PIE ignor[ed] a child’s other interests apart from pleasure’. In the mind of Shaffer, hedonism should have come ‘pretty low on the list’ in the lessons the liberational adults should have been teaching their children. [136] Just as celebrations of Laing had little to do with real mental illness, PIE’s posturing had little relationship with the reality of childhood.

Christian Wolmar argued that ‘the failure of supporters of greater sexual freedom to distinguish between openness and exploitation meant that for a time paedophilia almost became respectable’. [139] However at the heart of the gay left/paedophile interaction there was an equally strong dynamic working against paedophilia. Any connection between paedophilia, the counter-culture and the Left was bound to increase rather than decrease reactions against paedophile self-organisation. So rather than representing a greying of attitudes towards sexuality debates surrounding paedophilia clearly demarcated the line beyond which behaviour was unacceptable. When Ken Livingstone and his Greater London Council sought to harness the energy of lesbian and gay politics, they confronted a similar dynamic. Attaching a left-wing campaign to personal politics was not going to bring down the State, but it might help to bring down the Left.

50. Roger Moody, ‘Paedophile Politics’, Gay Left 2 (Spring 1976) p. 23.
51. Kenneth Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’, in Perspectives on Paedophilia, ed. B. Taylor (Batsford, 1981). Kenneth Plummer, ‘Pedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline’, in Adult Sexual Interest in Children, eds. Mark Cook and Kevin Howells (Academic Press, 1981).
52. Gay Left Collective, ‘Happy Families: Paedophilia Explained’, Gay Left 7 (Winter 1978-79).
53. Edward Brongersma, ‘An Historical Background’, The NAMBLA Bulletin 4, 2 (1983), p. 1.
54. A. Mayer and H. Warschauer, ‘The Vilest Men in Britain’, Sunday People (25 May 1975). Michael Mason, J. Grace, and C. Hill, ‘The Vilest Men in Britain’, Gay News 72 (1975). Plummer, ‘The Paedophiles’ Progress: A View from Below’, p. 128. Bob Taylor, Perspectives on Paedophilia (Batsford, 1981), p. xix.
55. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’, p. 118.
56. PIE, ‘Evidence on the Law Relating to and Penalties for Certain Sexual Offences for the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee’. Wolmar, Forgotten Children: The Sexual Abuse Scandal in Children’s Homes (Vision, 2000), pp. 138, 143. Plummer, ‘The Paedophiles’ Progress: A View from Below’, p. 128.
57. Anthony Bevins, ‘Labour’s Hard Left to Form New Group’, The Times (24 August 1983).[see below]
58. ‘Hotel Ban on Paedophiles’, The Times (25 August 1977). [see below]
59. E.g. Anna Gekoski, ‘Their Evil Is Incurable Says Crime Expert’, News of the World (23 July 2000). [see below]
60. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case (Peter Owen, 1980) p. 230.
61. Gay Noise Collective, ‘Campaign Moves into Full Swing’, Gay Noise 4 (25 September 1980).
62. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case pp. 208, 209, 247.
63. Plummer, ‘The Paedophiles’ Progress: A View from Below’, p. 126. ‘Hotel Ban on Paedophiles’ [See below]. Cook and Howells, Adult Sexual Interest in Children, p. viii.
64. Kevin Howells, ‘Adult Sexual Interest in Children: Considerations Relevant to theories of Aetiology’, Adult Sexual Interest in Children, eds. Mark Cook and Kevin Howells (Academic Press, 1981). Kenneth Plummer, ‘Paedophilia: Constructing a Sociological Baseline’, Adult Sexual Interest in Children. D.J. West, ‘Implications for Social Control’, Adult Sexual Interest in Children. [See here for more on West]
65. Mazher Mahmood, ‘Caught in the Act’, News of the World (5 August 2001). [See below]
66. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’, p. 116. C.H.E., Bulletin (Harverster, 1974).
67. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’, pp. 119, 116, 117.
68. C.H.E., Bulletin, 11 & 12 (Harvester, 1974).
69. C.A.P.M., Paedophilia and Public Morals (no date HCA). PIE, ‘Evidence on the Law’.
70. Richard Card, ‘Paedophilia and the Law’, in Perspectives on Paedophilia, ed. B. Taylor (Batsford, 1981) p. 21.
71. Taylor, Perspectives on Paedophilia, p. vii.
72. PIE, ‘Evidence on the Law’. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View form Below’, p. 122.
73. PIE, ‘Evidence on the Law’.
74. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 143. Christian Wolmar, ‘Home Truths’, Independent on Sunday (8 October 2000).
75. ‘PIE is in the Wars Again’, Gay News, August (1979).
76. North-Western Homosexual Law Reform Committee, Bulletin January (Harvester). O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 232. Grey, Speaking of Sex: the Limits of Language (Cassell, 1993) p. 91. C.A.P.M., Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. 21. Peter Tatchell, ‘Letter to the Editor’, The Guardian Weekend (17 February 2001). Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 140. ‘PIE is in the Wars Again’.
77. Mary Manning, ‘Should We Pity the Paedophiles?’, Community Care, Autumn (1977). Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 144.
78. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 140.
79. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, pp. 139-40.
80. ‘PIE Blackmail Case’, Gay News (1977).
81. David Nicholson-Lord, ‘Government “Apathy” on PIE Criticised’, The Times (31 August 1983). ‘PIE is in the Wars Again’.
82. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 233.
83. ‘PIE is in the Wars Again’.
84. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’, p. 128.
85. Mahmood, ‘Caught in the Act’ [see below], ‘Open University Man Suspended’, The Times (23 September 1977) [see below].
86. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 9.
87. Brian Deer, ‘Paranoid About PIE’, Gay News 185 (1980). Dr. T. Stuttaford, ‘Everett Picture Gives Credence to Dangerous Myth’, The Times (7 April 1995) [see below].
88. C.A.P.M., Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. iii. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 142. Outcome, Outcome 7 (1978).
89. Gay Noise Collective, ‘The Paedophile Information Exchange Trial’, Gay Noise 12 (12 December 1981).
90. ‘File on Child Sex Group for DPP’ [see below]. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, pp. 142-3.
91. Gay Noise Collective, ‘The Paedophile Information Exchange Trial’. Gay Youth, ‘Editorial’, Gay Youth 11 (Summer 1984). Bevias, ‘Labour’s Hard Left to Form New Group’. David Nicholson-Lord, ‘Child Sex Group Men Arrested’, The Times (9 September 1983) [see below].
92. Peter Evans, ‘Minister Condemns Paedophile Views’, The Times (2 September 1983). ‘Telephone Caller Says He Knows One of the Men Who Assaulted Boy’, The Times (25 August 1983). Nicholson-Lord, ‘Police Hunting Men Who Assaulted Boy Lack Vital Computer Software’, The Times (25 August 1983) [see below].
93. Nicholson-Lord ‘Government “Apathy” on PIE Criticised’. Nicholson-Lord, ‘Police Hunting Men Who Assaulted Boy Lack Vital Computer Software’ [see below]. ‘Hysterical Attacks on Paedophiles’. C.H.E., Annual Conference Report, September (1983).
94. ‘File on Child Sex Group for DPP’ [see below]. ‘MP Seeks to Ban Child Sex Group’ (23 August 1983). Nicholson-Lord, ‘Government “Apathy” on PIE Criticised’.
95. Evans, ‘Minister Condemns Paedophile Views’.
96. ‘Hysterical Attacks on Paedophiles’.
97. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 220.
98. Sheila Rowbotham, Promise of a Dream (Allen Lane, 2000) p. 70.
99. ‘Leaders of Paedophile Group Are Sent to Jail’, The Times (5 November 1984). ‘PIE Member Faces Child Pornography Charge’, The Times (17 November 1984) [see below].
100. Derek Cohen and Richard Dyer, ‘The Politics of Gay Culture’, in Homosexuality: Power and Politics, pp. 172-86.
101. ‘Three Men Fined after Paedophile Meeting’, The Times (21 September 1977) [see below].
102. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 230.
103. Cohen and Richard, ‘The Politics of Gay Culture’, p. 198. The far-Right continued this entryist relationship with the public campaigns pertaining to paedophilia. For example the National Democrat’s ‘Help Our Children’ campaign. (The Flag: The National Democrats, Help Our Children [website] (www.natdems.org.uk/the_flag.htm, August 2001 [cited 21 August 2001]).
104. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 142.
105. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 210. C.H.E., Bulletin, p. 129. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View from Below’. C.H.E., Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Homosexuality (C.H.E., 1975).
106. C.H.E., ‘CHE’s Reply to the Guardian’. C.H.E., ‘Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee Held on 12th, 13th & 14th September 1975’ (Harvester, 1975). C.H.E., ‘Minutes of the Meeting of the Executive Committee Held on 14th June 1975’ (Harvester, 1975). Glenys Parry, Letter from Glenys Parry to Local Group Chairpeople, C.H.E. (Harvester, 17/09/1975).
107. C.H.E. Committee, Annual Conference Report, Annual Conference Report (Harvester, September 1983).
108. O’Carroll, Paedophilia: The Radical Case, p. 234.
109. NFOL, ‘Paederasty and the Homosexual Movement’, Broadsheet (1977) p. 20. Grey, Speaking of Sex, p. 90.
110. Grey, Speaking of Sex, p. 95.
111. Grey, Speaking of Sex, p. 91.
112. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 142. C.A.P.M., Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. iii.
113. C.A.P.M, Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. iii.
114. C.A.P.M, Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. iii.
115. Graham Mckerrow, ‘Judge Orders PIE Retrial’, Gay News (1981).
116. Gay Noise Collective, ‘The Paedophile Information Exchange Trial’.
117. ‘Hysterical Attacks on Paedophiles’, Outrage 3 (1983).
118. Gay Noise Collective, ‘Demonstrations against State Repression’, Gay Noise 13 (12 February 1981).
119. Gay Noise Collective, ‘Campaign Moves into Full Swing’.
120. Gay Noise Collective, ‘Editorial: The IMG and Paedophilia: the Wrong Initiative at the Wrong Time’, Gay Noise 12 (12 February 1981). Deer, ‘Paranoid about PIE’.
121. ‘Hotel Ban on Paedophiles’. Maurice Yaffe, ‘Paedophilia: The Forbidden Subject’, New Statesman (16 September 1977) p. 362. Dea Birkett, ‘Monsters with Human Faces’, The Guardian (27 September 1997).
122. Gay Noise Collective ‘Editorial: The IMG and Paedophilia: the Wrong Initiative at the Wrong Time’, Gay Noise 12 (1981) p. 2.
123. C.A.P.M, Paedophilia and Public Morals, p. 6.
124. Deer, ‘Paranoid about PIE’.
125. J. Geraci, Dares to Speak (GMP, 1997) p. 30.
126. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View form Below’, p. 130.
127. Mason, Grace, and Hill, ‘The Vilest Men in Britain’. Cohen and Richard, ‘The Politics of Gay Culture’, p. 198. Julie Bindel, ‘Rather Than Campaign on the Age of Consent. . .’, The Guardian Weekend (3 March 2001).
128. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 140.
129. Plummer, ‘The Paedophile’s Progress: A View form Below’, pp. 128-9.
130. Lucy Robinson, Interview with Peter Burton, unpublished (1 June 1999).
131. Gee, ‘Gay Activism’, p. 199.
132. ‘PIE is in the Wars Again’.
133. Gay Times (August 1997).
134. Wolmar, Forgotten Children. Wolmar, ‘Home Truths’. Margaret Hodge, ‘Not Quite, White’, New Statesman (16 June 1995). Wendy Parkin and Lorraine Green, ‘Cultures of Abuse within Residential Care’, Early Child Development and Care 1333 (1997) p. 75. S. Payne and E. Fairweather, ‘Minister Acts over Our Child Abuse Revelations’, Evening Standard (7 January 1992) [see below]. Polly Neate ‘Too Tolerant a Past?’, Community Care (15-21 July 1999).
135. There is a proven relationship between one member of the PIE and the children’s home scandals. Peter Righton was senior lecturer at the National Institute for Social Work, senior tutor at Open University, and sat on many committees including the Central Council for Education in Training and Social Work (Peter Righton, ‘Positive and Negative Aspects in Residential Care’, Social Work Today 8, 37 (1977)). He was charged with possession of books, videos and photos of young men (Peter Burden and Peter Rose, ‘Porn Squad Quiz Child Care Expert’, Daily Mail (28 May 1992) [see below]. He was later found to be PIE member number 51. Righton had used his professional position to assist a banned teacher, Charles Napier, who he had met through the PIE. Through Righton’s influence Napier was able to return to Britain and have the ban lifted (BBC, Children at Risk: Inside Story, 1 June 1994). Edward Pilkington, ‘Shadow of the Attic’, The Guardian (1 June 1994).
136. Polly Neate, ‘Too Tolerant a Past?’, p. 14
137. Pilkington, ‘Shadow of the Attic’.
138. Tim Gospill and Duncan Campbell, ‘Untouchable Subject’, Time Out (9 September 1977).
139. Wolmar, Forgotten Children, p. 153.



‘Hotel ban on paedophiles’, The Times, August 25th, 1977

Times250877 - Hotel ban on paedophiles

‘Three Men Fined after Paedophile Meeting’, The Times, September 21st, 1977

Times 210977 - Three men fined after paedophile meeting

‘Open University man suspended’, The Times, September 23rd, 1977

Times 230977 - Open University Man Suspended

Anthony Bevins, ‘Labour’s hard left to form new group’, The Times, August 24th, 1983

Times 240883 - Labour's hard left to form new group 1

Times 240883 - Labour's hard left to form new group 2

‘File on child sex group for DPP’, The Times, August 24th, 1983

Times 240883 - File on child sex group for DPP

David Nicholson-Lord, ‘Police hunting men who assaulted boy lack vital computer software’, The Times, August 25th, 1983

Times 250883 - Police hunting men who assaulted boy lack vital computer software

David Nicholson-Lord, ‘Child sex group men arrested’, The Times, September 9th, 1983

Times 090983 - Child sex group men arrested

‘PIE member faces child pornography charge’, The Times, November 17th, 1984

Times 171184 - PIE member faces child pornography charge

Dr. T. Stuttaford, ‘Everett Picture Gives Credence to Dangerous Myth’, The Times, April 7th, 1995

Times 070495 - Everett picture gives credence to dangerous myth


Daily Mail (London)

May 28th, 1992, Thursday

PORN SQUAD QUIZ CHILD CARE EXPERT
By Peter Burden,Peter Rose

A LEADING consultant on children’s homes has been arrested after police raided his house and seized videos featuring young males.

The action came after Customs at Dover intercepted a magazine and a book sent from the Continent to 66-year-old Peter Righton.

A major police inquiry has been launched to establish the identities and ages of those involved in the videos, where they were taken and by whom.

Books and magazines were also seized. It is an offence to possess an obscene picture showing under-16s.

Mr Righton, who has worked for several publicly-funded bodies, was on police bail last night waiting to hear whether or not he will be prosecuted.

He denied making any of the videos himself and said: ‘I am sure there will be a satisfactory outcome.’

He added: ‘It is no secret that I am gay. It’s not an offence, although one is made to feel it is.’

Mr Righton is widely regarded as the leading authority on council residential care of children.

The Department of Health’s social services inspectorate has been told of the raid at his home in Evesham, Hereford and Worcester, and a report is expected to go to Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley.

She is a patron of the National Children’s Bureau, a highly-respected charity for which Mr Righton has worked as a senior consultant.

The bureau, which monitors children’s welfare, receives £1million for administration from the Health Department and a series of grants for Government work such as providing training packages and videos for social services managers and social workers.

Mr Righton’s credentials include having been senior lecturer at the National Institute for Social Work in Tavistock Square, Bloomsbury, which was established by Ministers in 1961.

It has an annual income of £2million, mostly from the Health Department.

He is also a senior tutor with the Open University, where his work includes advising social work managers from all over the country on the the rights of children in care.

Mr Righton has served on many committees including the Central Council for Education in Training and Social Work. He began his career working in approved schools and residential homes.

As part of his various jobs he has regularly visited children’s homes.

Chris Andrews, of the British Association of Social Workers, said: ‘He is a highly respected figure within the residential field, particularly working with highly disturbed children. He is very much concerned with therapeutic work in child care.’

Mr Righton stressed last night: ‘I have not been charged with any offence. I cannot see what offence they can charge me with.’

At the former farm cottage he shares with Mr Richard Alston, headmaster of a school for disturbed children, he insisted that none of the seized items featured under-age boys.

The raid by police and Customs officers took place on May 12. Mr Righton was released on bail after lengthy questioning and has been ordered to report back next month.

A full police report is expected to be sent to the Crown Prosecution Service soon.

Mr Righton was involved in controversy in 1977, when he called for a more liberal attitude to sex in children’s homes.

He said in the magazine Social Work: ‘Provided there is no question of exploitation, sexual relationships freely entered into by residents – including adolescents – should not be a matter for automatic inquiry.’

But last night he said he had been misrepresented in a part of the article appearing to condone sex between staff and adolescents in care. He was in fact against that.

Mr Righton, dressed in a T-shirt and slacks, added: ‘In the course of my work I did visit children’s homes but not many times.’

Of his relationship with Mr Alston, he said: ‘Yes, I do live here with Mr Alston, but what is wrong with that? We are consenting adults.’


Evening Standard (London)

October 7th, 1992, Wednesday

Minister acts over our child abuse revelations
By Stewart Payne, Eileen Fairweather

HEALTH SECRETARY Virginia Bottomley today ordered Islington Council to provide a swift response to the ‘serious and worrying allegations’ of abuse revealed in an Evening Standard investigation into its children’s homes.

Yesterday the Standard printed the disturbing stories of children in care who have been exposed to paedophiles, pimps and prostitution.

Today, beginning on Page 15, we examine the cases of two former Islington residential workers alleged to have abused boys in their care and how fears of a child sex ring were dismissed by management.

Following yesterday’s publication, Mrs Bottomley issued a statement saying she had instructed Islington Council to explain its actions ‘as soon as possible’.

‘To take advantage of the most vulnerable children in our society in the ways alleged in the Evening Standard article is despicable,’ she said.

‘I know that Islington Council will be looking very closely at their services for children and the people who provide them. I have asked the Social Services Inspectorate to give me a full report on Islington’s response.’

She added that she had recently urged new measures to strengthen independent inspection of children’s homes ‘in order to protect children from abuse and exploitation.

‘I intend to make sure that we have in place reliable systems that will pick up early warning signs.’

Islington Council confirmed that Mrs Bottomley had asked it to produce a report commenting on the Standard articles. ‘Its author will be independent of the social services department,’ said a spokesman.

The council also issued a statement from Labour councillor Sandy Marks, who chairs the social services committee. This ignores the central concerns raised by yesterday’s articles but takes issue on several points of detail. It says:

* ‘The circumstances of these young people are known to us and have been the subject of casework or detailed investigation.’

We reply: We do not dispute this. But, as the children’s stories showed, it was clearly ineffective. Some of our sources were involved in this casework and appealed to us because they felt it had not been resolved properly.

* ‘All our homes are inspected monthly and reports provided to management and councillors.’

We reply: We do not challenge the regularity of inspections, merely their efficiency.

* ‘The Standard has been asked for three months to furnish us with any new evidence. They have singularly failed to do so.’

We reply: We completed our inquiries and gave the council two weeks to prepare their reply. We do not claim to have found ‘new evidence’. What we have done is to expose how Islington failed to act properly on the evidence already given by parents, children and worried staff.

* ‘Neville Mighty, a key informant of the Standard, was the subject of allegations of gross sexual misconduct by young people in his care, was investigated and subsequently dismissed.’
We reply: Mighty was charged with sexual harassment but was found guilty only of using inappropriate language of a sexual nature. The matter is now under appeal. Twelve members of staff gave evidence on his behalf, including nine women. He is only one of our many sources.

* ‘The case of Roy Caterer was the subject of a Hertfordshire police investigation. No evidence or information was passed to the council.’

We reply: This is clearly wrong. Caterer was only imprisoned for sexually abusing children in care when a determined Islington social worker found some of his victims and went to local police. They liaised with Hertfordshire police.

That social worker wrote a report for her superiors and no action was taken on it.

Councillor Marks also claimed children interviewed by the Standard were paid.

And Mrs Margaret Hodge, leader of Islington Council, alleged in a radio interview with LBC Newstalk Radio that our reporters sat outside childrens home enticing children with £50 bribes for stories.

We reply: These allegations are absolutely untrue. Only one girl, no longer in care and unemployed, was paid £90 with her parents’ approval. This was for the time she spent helping reporters trace children who suffered in Islington’s care during the 12-week inquiry.

It is most unfortunate that Islington Council should seek to deflect the substance and seriousness of the situation revealed by the Standard’s inquiry by making inaccurate statements. We believe the council should concentrate its energies on reforming its inadequate social services procedures.

News of the World

July 23, 2000

Their evil is incurable says crime expert; Interview; Ray Wyre; NOW campaign; For Sarah Campaign against paedophiles
By Anna Gekoski

THE monster who murdered Sarah Payne will kill again unless he is caught, warns a senior sex crime psychologist.

Ray Wyre, an expert on cases of child abduction, explained that many paedophiles are incurable. “Research shows that once a paedophile starts to offend they have urges that don’t go away.

“Such behaviour will have its seeds in childhood where the person will most probably have been sexually abused himself. This will start a cycle of fantasy which spills over into reality in small ways at first.

“The offender may begin with indecent exposure before moving on to indecent assault, then attempted rape and then rape. In a small number this then leads to murder.”

Mr Wyre has worked with child sex killer Robert Black, convicted in 1994 of the murders of five-year-old Caroline Hogg, Sarah Harper, ten, and 11-year-old Susan Maxwell.

“Black had abducted and sexually assaulted a little girl when he was just a teenager,” he said. “The attack was so severe that she nearly died. Yet he was simply admonished for that offence. The authorities said at the time he’d grow out of it and it would be wrong to label him.

“I firmly believe that if he had been put away then, Sarah, Caroline and Susan would be alive today.” Mr Wyre believes that even where paedophiles are jailed for less than life the authorities should have the power to keep them in for the rest of their days if the prisoner is still considered dangerous at his release date..

Treatment

“There are paedophiles I’ve worked with in prison who say they’ll offend again, some who even say they’ll kill,” he said. “Yet they’ve been given a fixed sentence and the law has no provision to deal with future danger.”

Another problem, he says, is that under current law the psychological treatment of paedophiles in prison is voluntary. “Many of the worst offenders, those who need treatment the most, choose not to undergo the treatment programmes,” he added. “We need a new system whereby treatment is mandatory.”

Meanwhile the hunt goes on for Sarah Payne’s killer. Mr Wyre added: “Men who abduct, sexually abuse and kill are men with a history. Tragically they are also men with a future. At some time he will do it again.”


News of the World

August 5, 2001

CAUGHT IN THE ACT

By Mazher Mahmood Investigations Editor, in Barjac, France

We find leering child sex perverts befriending kids at nudist camp

A NAKED grey-haired man brushes past children playing around a swimming pool at a nudist camp.

Grinning broadly, he stops to chat to the bare youngsters-many of them British-as they frolic in the sunshine.

Their unsuspecting parents smile politely at the scene. They have no idea that their children’s new playmate is one of the most infamous perverts on earth.

For the man is Thomas O’Carroll-founder of the evil Paedophile Information Exchange which campaigned for the legalisation of sex with children.

News of the World undercover reporters tracked 55-year-old O’Carroll-who has avoided being photographed for 20 years-to the family naturist resort in the south of France. And we discovered he was not the only paedophile lurking at the poolside.

Nearby, former teacher Simon St Clair Terry-once jailed for indecently assaulting a 12-year-old girl pupil-sat rubbing oil into the back of a naked 14-year-old he first befriended at the camp six years ago.

Both fiends spent the day mingling among families and wandering around the tents at the La Sabliere camp set in acres of woodlands in Barjac.

“I’m really enjoying myself here. It’s a fantastic place,” leering O’Carroll told a reporter posing as a tourist. “It’s full of children because of the school holidays.

Ogle

“This place was highly recommended and it’s living up to all expectations! I’m going to Blackpool next week, although I don’t think that will be this good!”

O’Carroll-who served two years in jail for corrupting public morals–ate lunch by an underwater window in the side of the swimming pool.

Designed so that parents could keep an eye on their children, it was the perfect place for him to ogle naked tots as they swam past. “It’s more like an aquarium than a swimming pool,” he drooled.

Twisted O’Carroll bragged to our reporters that he was an academic.

But the former Open University press officer failed to mention that he was sacked after forming his infamous ring of child molesters.

The Paedophile Information Exchange boasted more than 300 members before police smashed it in the Eighties with a string of arrests following a News of the World investigation. Monster O’Carroll also made no mention of the vile book he wrote on the “myths of childhood innocence” in which he said: “Consenting children and adults have a right to private intimacy together just as lesbians and gay men do.”

Now O’Carroll-who owns a house in Leamington, Warwicks-is part of a sick new gang of 200 paedophiles called GWAIN-Gentlemen Without An Interesting Name-which is being watched by Scotland Yard detectives.

The highly organised group hold clandestine meetings at homes and members are in touch via e-mails. One of the group’s officials was arrested last year on suspicion of raping a 10-year old boy.

As O’Carroll wandered off to chat to an eight-year-old he had befriended, disgraced teacher Terry returned to the caravan he is sharing with a Belgian single mum.

She met the molester when he first came to the camp in 1995. Then her daughters were eight and 11.

Jail

He has been joining her for holidays there ever since, and also visits her at her home in Antwerp.

It is not known whether she is aware of his disturbing past-that he spent six months in jail in 1991 for assaulting a pupil. And that he kept a stomach-churning diary of his obsession with the youngster.

“I’m here for a month. I’m really lucky with my work. I get a lot of holidays,” 42-year-old Terry told our reporters.

“I’ve been coming here for years-it’s a great place.”

Terry-who works as an account manager for Waterstones’ bookshop in Canterbury, Kent-has a history of targeting young girls.

He has had involvement with the Girl Guides and once set up a club for 11 to 12-year-olds called the Pig Tin Club.

After sitting naked with two youngsters outside his tent at La Sabliere, Terry then joined in a ball game with a group of naked girls and boys.

Today both paedophiles can expect to be thrown out of their perverts’ paradise. Our dossier is available to the authorities in Britain and France.

DO you know a scandal that should be exposed? Call Maz on 0207 782 4402 or e-mail him at mazher.mahmood@news-of-the-world.co.uk

Advertisements

Index of major original articles on abuse

I am in the process of preparing longer bibliographies of both published and online articles relating to issues of institutionalised abuse, specifically the areas on which I have concentrated – abuse in music schools and private schools, the Paedophile Information Exchange, and abuse involving politicians. Having recently reblogged a large number of articles from the Spotlight blog, I realise my site may not be so easy to navigate, so I am providing here a list with links of all my significant original articles.


General

New Cross-Party Group of MPs calling for Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (3/6/14)

Please contact your MP to ask for their support for a national inquiry into child abuse (5/6/14)

The stock government reply to queries about a national inquiry into organised child abuse (15/6/14, also regularly updated)

Peter McKelvie’s response to Sir Tony Baldry MP (9/7/14)

British Association of Social Workers contacts its 14K members calling for them to support organised abuse inquiry (20/6/14)

Published Articles on Geoffrey Dickens, Leon Brittan, and the Dossier (2/7/14)

Dickensgate – Guest Blog Post by Brian Merritt on Inconsistencies in Leon Brittan’s Accounts (6/7/14)

House of Commons debate 26/6/14 following publication of Savile reports (26/6/14)

On the Eve of Possible Major Revelations – and a Reply to Eric Joyce (1/7/14)


Abuse in Musical Education and the Music World

Reported Cases of Abuse in Musical Education, 1990-2012, and Issues for a Public Inquiry (30/12/13) (this post is in need of some updating to mention other cases during the period in question)

The Trial of Michael and Kay Brewer and the Death of Frances Andrade, and the Aftermath, 2013 (12/8/14)

Proposed Guidelines to protect both Music Teachers and Students – a starting point for discussion (21/2/15)

New stories and convictions of abuse in musical education, and the film of the Institute of Ideas debate (11/1/14) (also in need of updating)

Petition for an inquiry into sexual and psychological abuse at Chetham’s School of Music and other specialist institutions (original version – each version has a different long list of comments) (16/2/13)

Petition for an Inquiry into Sexual and other Abuse at Specialist Music Schools – The List of Signatories (19/2/13)

Re-opened until May 31st, 2013 – Petition for an Inquiry into Abuse in Specialist Music Education (9/5/13) (the final version)

A further call to write to MPs to support an inquiry into abuse in musical education (26/11/13)

In the Aftermath of the Brewer Sentencing – A Few Short Thoughts and Pieces of Information (27/3/13)

Michael Brewer – a powerful Director of Music, not just a provincial choirmaster or music teacher (28/3/13)

Reports from the Malcolm Layfield Trial (2/6/15)

Chris Ling’s Views on Sexing Up Classical Music (11/2/13)

Robert Waddington, Former Dean of Manchester Cathedral, and Chetham’s School of Music (12/5/13)

The 1980 Department of Education and Science Report into Chetham’s School of Music, National Archives ED 172/598/2 (20/9/15)

Contact details for Greater Manchester Police relating to Chetham’s (11/4/13)

Publication of Reports into Chetham’s by ISI and MCC – Senior Management and Governors should consider their position (3/4/13)

New Surrey Safeguarding Report on suicide of Frances Andrade draws attention to dangers of music education (10/4/14)

Alun Jones to be new Head of Chetham’s – and a list of SMS Heads and Music Directors (13/12/15)

Marcel Gazelle and the Culture of the Early Yehudi Menuhin School (7/5/13)

Craig Edward Johnson, the Yehudi Menuhin School, Adrian Stark, and wider networks? (8/4/14)

Contact Details for Surrey Police, in relation to the Yehudi Menuhin School (11/5/13)

Philip Pickett arrested on 15 charges, and interview with Clare Moreland in The Times (14/2/14)

The case of Ian Lake, and reflections on the year (30/12/13)

Clifford Hindley: Pederasty and Scholarship (3/3/14)

Abuse minimisation as an example of the writing of history as kitsch (14/7/13)

New article in Times Educational Supplement on abuse in musical education – and public debate on October 19th, Barbican Centre (3/10/13)

A message from another victim of abuse at a UK music school, calling for others to come forward (25/11/13)

Call to speak out on bullying and psychological/emotional abuse in music (9/1/14)

Alan Doggett, first conductor of Joseph and Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Paedophile Information Exchange (28/3/14) (an updated version of original post from 7/3/14)

New revelations on Alan Doggett, and Colin Ward’s 1981 article on Doggett and Tom O’Carroll (25/3/14)

Further on Alan Doggett – child prostitution and blaming victims at Colet Court School (28/3/14)

Peter Righton’s Diaries: Benjamin Britten, Peter Pears and Michael Davidson (11/5/14)

Benjamin Britten and Peter Righton – A Response from the Britten-Pears Foundation (12/9/14)

Geoff Baker on El Sistema: sexual and other abuse in an authoritarian, hierarchical, archaic music culture (15/11/14)


The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and associated areas

NCCL and PIE – documentary evidence 1 (25/2/14)

NCCL Documentary Evidence 2 – Sexual Offences – Evidence to the Criminal Law Revision Committee 1976 (7/4/14)

PIE – documentary evidence 2 – from Magpie 1-8 (trigger warning – contains disturbing material) (26/2/14)

PIE – documentary evidence 3 – from Magpie 9-17 (trigger warning – contains disturbing material) (26/2/14)

PIE – documentary evidence 4 – UP, ‘Childhood Rights’, and Paedophilia – some questions and answers (27/2/14)

PIE – Documentary Evidence 5 – Contact Ads (9/3/14)

PIE – Documentary Evidence 6 – Chairperson’s Report 1975/76 (16/3/14)

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

PIE – Documentary Evidence 8 – Mary Manning in Community Care and Auberon Waugh in The Spectator, 1977 (16/7/14)

The PIE Manifesto (6/3/14) (link to Spotlight blog from 18/4/13)

PIE and the Home Office: Three+ members/supporters on inside, funded, magazine printed and phone line (15/3/14)

PIE and the Gay Left in Britain – The Account by Lucy Robinson – plus various articles newly online (29/6/14)

Antony Grey and the Sexual Law Reform Society 1 (26/8/14)

Antony Grey and the Sexual Law Reform Society 2 (29/9/14)

Tim Tate – Chapter on Paedophiles from book ‘Child Pornography: An Investigation’ (4/8/14)

Mary Whitehouse and Charles Oxley on PIE – and another letter to Leon Brittan (8/7/14)

Published Articles on Geoffrey Dickens, Leon Brittan, and the Dossier (2/7/14)

Dickensgate – Guest Blog Post by Brian Merritt on Inconsistencies in Leon Brittan’s Accounts (6/7/14)

The File on Peter Hayman in the National Archives (30/1/15)

Two Obituaries of Peter Hayman, Senior Diplomat, MI6 Officer and PIE Member (6/3/14)

Clifford Hindley: Pederasty and Scholarship (3/3/14)

Peter Righton – His Activities up until the early 1980s (21/8/14)

Letter to Guardian from 1963 from a Peter Righton on Books dealing with Sex for 14-year olds (20/8/14)

Peter Righton – Counselling Homosexuals (1973) (2/9/15)

Peter Righton’s Articles for Social Work Today (5/6/14)

Peter Righton and Morris Fraser’s Chapters in ‘Perspectives on Paedophilia’ (5/6/14)

Peter Righton’s writing on child abuse in Child Care: Concerns and Conflicts – his cynical exploitation of a post-Cleveland situation (28/8/15)

Peter Righton, Antony Grey and Kevin O’Dowd in conversation on therapy (26/8/14)

Peter Righton was questioned about child sex offences in May 1993 and November 1994 (21/8/14)

The Larchgrove Assessment Centre for Boys in Glasgow that even Peter Righton found to be cruel (20/8/14)

Brian Taylor and Ken Plummer’s Chapters, and Bibliography, from ‘Perspectives on Paedophilia’ (29/6/14)

Peter Righton’s Diaries: Benjamin Britten, Peter Pears and Michael Davidson (11/5/14)

Benjamin Britten and Peter Righton – A Response from the Britten-Pears Foundation (12/9/14)

Peter Righton – Further Material (12/6/14)

Peter Righton obituary in Ardingly College magazine (16/7/14)

Reports from the Richard Alston Trial (20/8/15)

From the memoirs of John Henniker-Major, 8th Baron Henniker (1916-2004) (3/3/15)

Dr Morris Fraser, Belfast, Long Island New York, Islington (17/10/14) (This is a link to a post on Charlotte Russell’s blog, but so important I wanted to include it here)

The Love and Attraction Conference (1977) and Book (1979) (7/7/14)

Betrayal of Youth (1986) – including the contributions of Middleton, Owens, Faust, Tatchell (5/7/14)

Academia and Paedophilia 1: The Case of Jeffrey Weeks and Indifference to Boy-Rape (29/9/14)

The Uranians #1 – the nineteenth/early twentieth century PIE? (24/5/14)


Public Schools

Alan Doggett, first conductor of Joseph and Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Paedophile Information Exchange (28/3/14) (an updated version of original post from 7/3/14)

New revelations on Alan Doggett, and Colin Ward’s 1981 article on Doggett and Tom O’Carroll (25/3/14)

Further on Alan Doggett – child prostitution and blaming victims at Colet Court School (28/3/14)

Craig Edward Johnson, the Yehudi Menuhin School, Adrian Stark, and wider networks? (8/4/14)

Extraordinarily powerful article by Alex Renton on the abusive world of British boarding schools (4/5/14)

Colet Court School and St Paul’s: A Collection of Articles from The Times (8/5/14)

Benjamin Ross’s account of Colet Court School (8/5/14)

Criminal abuse in the classroom as portrayed by D.H. Lawrence (4/5/14)


Politicians, Government and Abuse

General

Call for All Political Leaders and Leadership Candidates to Pledge Full Co-operation with Abuse Inquiry (9/7/15)

What leading UK politicians should pledge about organised child abuse (17/10/14)

The Meeting with the Abuse Inquiry Secretariat at Millbank Tower, Friday October 31st, 2014 (1/11/14)

Labour’s nominees for inquiry chair, and a left ‘establishment’ (6/11/14)

Elm Guest House: Vigil, September 15th, 2014, and Links to Newspaper Reports (16/9/14)

New Cross-Party Group of MPs calling for Inquiry into Child Sex Abuse (3/6/14)

Please contact your MP to ask for their support for a national inquiry into organised child abuse (5/6/14, regularly updated).

The stock government reply to queries about a national inquiry into organised child abuse (15/6/14, also regularly updated)

British Association of Social Workers contacts its 14K members calling for them to support organised abuse inquiry (20/6/14)

Peter McKelvie’s response to Sir Tony Baldry MP (9/7/14)

House of Commons debate 26/6/14 following publication of Savile reports (26/6/14)

On the Eve of Possible Major Revelations – and a Reply to Eric Joyce (1/7/14)

A few good politicians – Becky Milligan at the office of Simon Danczuk, with Matt Baker, and the personal impact of abuse campaigning (18/7/14)

Ed Miliband should be leading the calls for a wide-ranging abuse inquiry (3/5/14)

Article from Telegraph – Simon Danczuk on child sex allegations involving senior Westminster figures (15/5/14)

Harvey Proctor’s Statement Today – and the False Claims about Tom Watson and other MPs (28/5/15)

PIE and the Home Office: Three+ members/supporters on inside, funded, magazine printed and phone line (15/3/14)

Who are the Mystery Liberal MPs Des Wilson refers to? (27/4/14)

Sir Maurice Oldfield, Sir Michael Havers, and Kincora – guest blog post from Brian Merritt (10/7/14)

William Malcolm, the murdered paedophile who may have been about to expose a VIP ring (21/7/14)


Leon Brittan and Geoffrey Dickens

Published Articles on Geoffrey Dickens, Leon Brittan, and the Dossiers (2/7/14)

Dickensgate – Guest Blog Post by Brian Merritt on Inconsistencies in Leon Brittan’s Accounts (6/7/14)

Leon Brittan – A guest post by Tim Tate on the investigations into and evidence relating to him (23/1/15)

Leon Brittan – Interview with Tim Tate on BCFM, 23/1/15 (24/1/15)

Leon Brittan, Special Branch and the creation of a surveillance state (25/1/15)

Douglas Hurd on Leon Brittan at the Home Office (5/7/14)


Peter Morrison

Peter Morrison – the child abuser protected by MI5, the Cabinet Secretary, and Margaret Thatcher – updated July 2015 (26/7/15)

Peter Morrison and the cover-up in the Tory Party – fully updated (6/10/14)

Yes, Labour politicians need to answer questions about PIE and NCCL, but so do the Tories about Morrison, and the Lib Dems about Smith (25/2/14)

Tim Tate’s Questions to Lord Armstrong, and Armstrong’s Answer (26/7/15)


Fiona Woolf

Fiona Woolf, Leon Brittan and William Hague – conflicts of interest (11/9/14)

Fiona Woolf – the untruth in her letter to the Home Secretary (21/10/14)


Scottish networks

Colin Tucker, steward to Fiona Woolf, Fettesgate and the Scottish ‘Magic Circle’ Affair, and Wider Networks – Part 1 (28/10/14)

Colin Tucker, steward to Fiona Woolf, Fettesgate and the Scottish ‘Magic Circle’ Affair, and Wider Networks – Part 2 (20/11/14)

A new transcription of the audio tape of the interview with the customs officer – and some comments on the recording (29/7/14) (relates to allegations against a former cabinet minister)


Lambeth and the New Labour Politician

Abuse in Lambeth, Operation Ore, and the Blair Minister(s) – Press Reports so far (16/7/14)


Greville Janner and Frank Beck

Judge in 1991 Leicestershire sex abuse case on ‘people in high places’ (24/5/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #1 (24/5/14) (these reports say much about the allegations against former Labour MP Greville Janner which were made in court)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #2 (24/5/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #3 (10/7/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #4 (10/7/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #5 (10/7/14)

Decision not to arrest Greville Janner in 1991 – then Attorney General and DPP need to answer questions (8/8/14)

The documents in the Andrew Faulds archives on Greville Janner (4/10/14)

Greville Janner was very drawn to children – some press clippings (16/4/15)

Greville Janner’s view on a 1997 case of Nazi War Criminal with dementia (16/4/15)

And another case with Janner calling in 2001 for extradition of war criminal with dementia (16/4/15)

Greville Janner and Margaret Moran – trial of facts more likely for expenses fiddling than child abuse? (27/6/15)


Other

Child abuse and identity politics – the normalisation of abuse on such grounds (18/7/14)

Anne Lakey didn’t ‘seduce’ or ‘take the virginity’ of a 13-year old boy – she sexually abused them (24/6/15)

Gore Vidal – paedophile, literary lover of child rape (11/8/14)

Germaine Greer’s Apologia for Child Abuse (27/6/14)

More pro-child sexual abuse propaganda from Germaine Greer (12/11/14).

Academia and Paedophilia 1: The Case of Jeffrey Weeks and Indifference to Boy-Rape (29/9/14)

The Uranians #1 – the nineteenth/early twentieth century PIE? (24/5/14)

Simon Callow on the paedophile exploits of André Gide, Oscar Wilde, Lord Alfred Douglas and others (31/7/14)

Liz Davies’ Open Letter to Margaret Hodge (3/8/14)

Paul Foot on Kincora Boys’ Home, and Recent Kincora Articles (1/8/14)

Paul Foot on Kincora – Appendix with Colin Wallace documents, and mention of Morris Fraser (9/8/14)

Claire Prentice in 1998 on Jimmy Savile, Cyril Smith, and Mummy’s Boys (30/6/14)

Mary Whitehouse’s Favourite TV Programme – Jim’ll Fix It (7/7/14)

Elm Guest House: Vigil, September 15th, 2014, and Links to Newspaper Reports (16/9/14)

Abuse in Lambeth, Operation Ore, and the Blair Minister(s) – Press Reports so far (16/7/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #1 (24/5/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #2 (24/5/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #3 (10/7/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #4 (10/7/14)

Full set of reports from the 1991 Frank Beck Trial #5 (10/7/14)

Decision not to arrest Greville Janner in 1991 – then Attorney General and DPP need to answer questions (8/8/14)

The documents in the Andrew Faulds archives on Greville Janner (4/10/14)

Be very sceptical about online communications laws which protect the powerful – social media and the right to offend (20/10/14)

Dealing with workplace bullying – and the tears of shame that its facilitators should weep (31/7/15)


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]


UPDATED: Alan Doggett, first conductor of Joseph and Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Paedophile Information Exchange

[A full collection of Andrew Norfolk’s articles on Colet Court, St Paul’s, and Alan Doggett can be read here]

An article was published in the Daily Mail in December (Guy Adams, ‘Apologists for Paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children’, Daily Mail, 14/12/13, updated 20/12/13 ), which pre-empted the rush of media coverage which has emerged in the last two weeks. This concerned the connection between the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Policing and former union official, and former cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt, all involved with the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s and 1980s, which was affiliated to PIE (and took out an ad in their journal Magpie in 1979). I have blogged at length reproducing documents relating to NCCL and PIE (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and also on the Whitehall senior civil servant (formerly a church minister and teacher of theology in India, later a musicologist and classical scholar) Clifford Hindley, who has been identified as the individual who secured government funding for PIE.

But another name appeared in the December article, which has not really been investigated further prior to this article: that of boys’ choir conductor and teacher Alan Doggett (1936-1978), who had an extended and important relationship with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. A letter about the suicide of Doggett in 1978 appeared in Issue 10 of Magpie (Letters, Magpie, Issue No. 10 (no date), p. 4) and a notice of his memorial service in the subsequent issue (‘Alan Doggett – Memorial Service’, Magpie, Issue No. 11 (May 1978), p. 2 – both this and the letter can be read in the fourth of my PIE blog posts linked to above), to both of which I will return presently. The Mail article named Doggett as a member of PIE; a source close to the heart of current police investigations has confirmed to me that this was definitely the case.

Doggett is listed in the second Magpie article as having worked as conductor of the London Boys’ Choir (erroneously titled here – this was the London Boy Singers), and was to be remembered for his ‘friendliness, integrity and loyalty’. But his claim to fame is stronger than this; as has been chronicled in various books and articles about or by Lloyd Webber and Rice, he was responsible for commissioning and conducting Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, conducting the recording of Jesus Christ Superstar, and sharing the conducting for Evita, as well as writing his own musical, Jason and the Golden Fleece, inspired by these earlier examples. A scholarly article argues for Doggett’s close involvement with Lloyd Webber and Rice, saying that ‘he was effectively a third member of the team prior to the international success of Jesus Christ Superstar’ (David Chandler, ‘’Everyone should have the opportunity’: Alan Doggett and the modern British Music’, Studies in Musical Theatre, Vol. 6, No. 3 (2012), pp. 275-289 (quotation from p. 275) – this article mentions nothing about the more troubling aspects of Doggett’s life, other than mentioning in passing that he committed suicide), whilst Andrew Lloyd Webber paid fulsome tribute to Doggett in an article published in the Mail in 2012 (‘’I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’ says Andrew Lloyd Webber as he opens up about the highs and lows of his career’, Daily Mail, September 24th, 2012).

In this article, I give an overview of Doggett’s life and work, and appeal to those who may have known or worked with him in (especially those who studied at Westminster Under School, Colet Court School, or who sung in the London Boy Singers or in the larger massed boy choirs he assembled) to come forward if they have any relevant information.

Alan Doggett was born on November 29th, 1936, in Epsom, Surrey. His father was Kenneth Raymond Doggett, who edited the shipping journal Dock and Harbour Authority. Alan grew up in Iver, Buckinghamshire, where he took piano lessons from an early age, and attended Colet Court, before going on to read history at Selwyn College, Cambridge (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277 – all other information not sourced elsewhere comes from here. Some of Chandler’s information on Doggett’s early life comes from correspondence with Doggett’s sister Jennifer Acornley, Ian Hunter, Doggett’s successor at Colet Court, and Julian Lloyd Webber). One account describes him as ‘a discreet homosexual’ who ‘ was enthusiastic about music but only modestly gifted’ (Michael Walsh, Andrew Lloyd Webber: His Life and Works (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1989), p. 37). His first job was as a history teacher at Westminster Under School, where he doubled as a music teacher and led the school choir (ibid). In this capacity he taught the young Julian Lloyd Webber (b. 1951), who attended the school between 1961 and 1963 and was a member of the choir (Tim Rice, Oh, What a Circus: The Autobiography (Coronet Books, 1999), p. 131). Through Julian, Alan Doggett came to meet his father William Lloyd Webber, and began to take an interest in the compositions of Julian’s brother Andrew Lloyd Webber (b. 1948), helping him with notational matters (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37). At some point during this period, Doggett also served as a vicar-choral at St Paul’s Cathedral, alongside Ian Hunter, who would become his assistant at Colet Court and later his successor (Jonathan Mantle, Fanfare: The Unauthorised Biography of Andrew Lloyd Webber (M. Joseph, 1989), pp. 30, 41).

In 1963, Doggett was appointed as Director of Music at Colet Court, an independent boys’ preparatory school established in 1881 which is linked to St Paul’s School, and whose headmaster from 1957 to 1973 was Henry J.G. Collis (1913-1994). Some prominent alumni of Colet Court include Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone (1928-), Sir Paul Lever (1944-), Paul Anthony Cartledge (1947-), John Cody Fidler Simpson (1944-), Sir Nicholas Felix Stadlen (1950-), Lloyd Marshal Dorfman (1952-), Jonathan Simon Speelman (1956-), the Conservative MP Dominic Grieve MP (1956-), Oliver Tom Parker (1960-) and Barnaby David Waterhouse Thompson (1961-) (David Bussey, John Colet’s Children: The Boys of St Paul’s School in later life (1509-2009) (Oxford: Gresham Books, 2009), pp. 157, 169, 172, 174-175, 182, 185, 188, 193, 196-197; parliamentary profile of Dominic Grieve).

At Colet Court, Doggett he brought in a system of vocal training based upon that of the Vienna Boys’ Choir (most distinct from traditional English methods), as well as finding external performance opportunities for the choir (Gerald McKnight, Andrew Lloyd Webber (London, Toronto, Sydney & New York: Granada Publishing, 1984), p. 85; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277). He also worked as organist at the school, at least by December 1964 (At least by December 1964. See advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 105, No. 1462 (December 1964), p. 936. Doggett had a letter published in The Musical Times in August 1966, entitled ‘Let the Children Sing’, just talking about the nature of school choirs; he was then listed as belonging to St Paul’s Junior School (the same thing as Colet Court). See The Musical Times, Vol. 107, No. 1482 (August 1966), pp. 687-688).

In 1964, Doggett also set up a choir at Emmanuel Parish Church, West Hampstead; his address at the time was given as SW1 2580 (see advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 105, No. 1451 (Jan 1964), p. 64). The vicar at the church during this period was The Reverend Jack Dover Wellman (The Rev Dr Peter Galloway, ‘A short history and guide to Emmanuel Church West Hampstead’) , who appears to have been an eccentric figure who wrote two books entitled A Priest’s Psychic Diary, with introduction by Richard Baker (London: SPCK, 1977) and A Priest and the Paranormal (Worthing: Churchman, 1988). Wellman also appeared on an edition of the late night Channel 4 programme After Dark, on April 30th, 1988, to discuss the subject ‘Bewitched, Bothered, or Bewildered?’, chaired by Anthony Wilson (see ‘After Dark 2’).

In 1965, Doggett already became more closely associated with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, helping out with some of the demonstration recordings of their musical The Likes of Us, written that year, about the life of Thomas Barnardo. Already on these recordings the Colet Court choir featured as the homeless children who Barnardo was helping, in stage cockney accents (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 131; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277, Mantle, Fanfare, p. 30). Rice described him as an ‘extremely camp teacher, who was some ten years older than I was’, and ‘a talented music master, though a less talented composer, always on the lookout for a new way of instilling enthusiasm for music into his young charges (aged eight to thirteen)’ (ibid).

But at some point whilst working at Colet Court, Doggett began to systematically abuse young boys there; since the appearance of the first version of this article, and the important subsequent articles by Andrew Norfolk in The Times (Andrew Norfolk, ‘Teachers ‘abused boys at Osborne’s old school”, ”The teacher sat us on his lap until his face went very red”, and ‘Friends to stars had easy access to boys’, all The Times, March 25th, 2014; Norfolk, ‘Boys punished for telling of abuse by teacher’, The Times, March 28th, 2014), numerous former pupils have come forward to testify about their abuse at the hands of Doggett (and other teachers at Colet Court and St Paul’s). One pupil, ‘Luke Redmond’ (not his real name), was sexually assaulted by three different men at Colet Court by the time he reached the age of 12. These were Doggett, the dorm monitor Paul Topham, who went on to become an Anglican priest, and was questioned under caution by police in 2000, though no charges were brought before his death in 2012, and a housemaster known as ‘Alex’ Alexander, who took pleasure in punishing boys in a sexualised fashion before taking them on his lap and giving them sweets and physical affection. On Doggett, the final printed version of the article says the following (not all included in the link above):

Luke’s abuse by Alan Doggett, Colet Court’s director of music, was a once-only indecent assault during the boy’s compulsory audition for the choir. [From earlier version of article: Doggett’s auditions of boarders were always when pupils were dressed for bed. Luke stood by the piano. As he sang, Doggett’s hand explored beneath the waistband of his pyjamas.]

A far worse fate awaited another boy in his dormitory, a year younger than Luke, who was angelic in both voice and looks. He was Doggett’s chosen one, summoned far too often from their dormitory to spend long hours at night in the choirmaster’s bedroom. (Norfolk, ”The teacher sat us on his lap until his face went very red”).

Another account by ‘Stephen’, one of the boys who eventually reported Doggett, leading to the latter’s leaving the school, spoke of what amounts to child prostitution, which boys receiving money from Doggett for allowing him to sexually abuse them:

“He had one particular favourite who received regular visits in the dormitory at night. He’d abuse the poor boy without seeming to care that we could all see and watch what was happening.”

Other ex-pupils spoke this week of open gossip among the boys that “half a crown” was the “going rate for a session with Doggett”. One said that his year group even coined a new verb: to be “Doggoed” was to be groped and fondled. (Norfolk, ‘Boys punished for telling of abuse by teacher’)

In late 1967, Doggett contacted Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, to request a cantata for the school’s annual spring concert. The headmaster of Colet Court, Henry Collis, had been quickly won over by Doggett’s proposal, despite some conservative doubts about setting a biblical story to popular music (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 85-86). To Lloyd Webber and Rice, Doggett made clear that he wanted something short and sharp, ideally a cantata on a religious theme, a story through song, though giving them carte blanche over the subject matter (Michael Coveney, The Andrew Lloyd Webber Story (London: Arrow Books, 2000), p. 53; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 131; Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 41-42). Doggett nonetheless suggested a biblical subject, thinking of what Michael Coveney refers to as that sort of unbuttoned Christian sing-along represented by such pieces as Herbert Chappell’s The Daniel Jazz (which he had produced the year before), Michael Flanders and Joseph Horovitz’s Captain Noah and His Floating Zoo and indeed Benjamin Britten’s exemplary Noye’s Fludde (Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 53). Rice found the story of Jacob’s son, Joseph, who was landed in trouble by his dreams and coat of many colours, leading his brothers to sell him into slavery in Egypt, where he becomes a prophetic guru to the Pharaoh, in The Wonder Book of Bible Stories (ibid; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 132). This would become Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. Lloyd Webber and Doggett worked together at the music room of Colet Court whilst the work was being composed, and Lloyd Webber was prepared to accept suggestions from the choir (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 42; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 133, 135).

The world premiere of Joseph took place on Friday March 1st, 1968, at 2:30 pm, in the Assembly Hall of Colet Court, conducted by Doggett himself, an ad hoc pop group called The Mixed Bag, including Rice (who took the part of Elvis/Pharaoh) and singer David Daltrey, a cousin of Roger’s (from The Who), who led the principal solo numbers for Joseph himself (see Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 136-142, for a detailed account; also McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 87-88, for Ian Hunter’s account). The school was itself about to move from its 1890 premises in Hammersmith to new buildings across the river in Barnes, and this performance would be the last in the old Assembly Hall (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37). The first half of the concert consisted of performances by the pianist John Lill, and both Julian and William Lloyd Webber; for Joseph, Ian Hunter played the piano and Julian played the cello (Stephen Citron, Stephen Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber: The New Musical (London: Chatto & Windus, 2001), p. 117). Several hundred parents were present and clapped politely (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37), but also on that day, a representative of the music publisher Novello’s, who had been invited to the premiere by Doggett and had given it an advance listing in what was then their flagship periodical, The Musical Times (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 279-280 – Chandler is sceptical about the account offered later in Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 148), offered to take on the piece, and pay £100 for it, as an educational work for schools (Lloyd Webber, ‘I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’).

The next performance took place at Westminster Central Hall, on May 12th, 1968, and involved 300 boys from Colet Court, conducted by Doggett (advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 109, No. 1503 (May 1968) p. 464. It had been organised by William Lloyd Webber, who was organist and musical director at Central Hall, and who played the organ in the performance (Hunter played the harpsichord) (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 45). The first half of the concert, attended by around two thousand people, including many parents, consisted of performances by the pianist John Lill, and both Julian and William (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 117; Lloyd Webber, ‘I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’). One boy in the choir was Nicholas Jewell, who had persuaded his father Derek Jewell, pop critic for the Sunday Times, to attend the performance (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 88-89). Jewell published an extremely positive review, which recognised the importance of Doggett’s role, the following weekend in the Sunday Times, on May 19th, 1968 (see Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 46-47, for the review; see also McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 91-93, Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 282), which caused jubilation amongst all involved with the production.

Eight weeks later, a recording was being made for Decca at the studios at Abbey Road of an expanded version for augmented ensemble with solo voices (a cast consisting of Terry Saunders, David Daltrey, Malcolm Parry, Tim Rice, John Cook, Bryan Watson) and rock musicians. The twelve or so Colet Court choirboys served as a backing group, with Doggett conducting and a ‘Joseph Consortium’ with William Lloyd Webber helping out on organ, and Martin Wilcox on harpsichord; some vocal backing was provided by Andrew and Tim Rice (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 47; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 148; the recording was Scepter/Capital (S) SMAS 93738. See Jerry Osborne, Movie/TV Soundtracks and Original Cast Recordings Price and Reference Guide (Jerry Osborne: Jerry Osborne Enterprises, 2002), p. 1982; see Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 281-282 for Rice and other’s attempts to marginalise the importance of Doggett and Novello’s in this process). Jonathan Mantle points out that ‘Half the boys of Colet Court were bussed over to sit at the sides of the grand Victorian hall and make up the choruses’ (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 45), but it is not clear whether these amounted to the twelve singers he mentions, or constituted others as well. Whichever, a large percentage of boys at Colet Court in 1968 would have been involved in this performance. A further performance was given in St Paul’s Cathedral on November 9th, 1968, again with Doggett conducting, William Lloyd Webber on organ, and received a positive review by Ray Connolly in the Evening Standard (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 51; McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 98-99).

But at some point between the Westminster performance in May 1968 and the recording in November 1968, Doggett left Colet Court; the exact date is unclear. The following accounts have been provided by former pupils:

Stephen (his surname is withheld), the pupil who ended Doggett’s Colet Court career, said that he and a friend decided to speak to the school’s headmaster, Henry Collis, after Doggett indecently assaulted both 11-year-olds as they sat on each side of him during a televised football match in May 1968.

“It was the Manchester United v Benfica European Cup Final. We were sitting on the floor and Doggett’s hands were groping inside our pyjama bottoms.

“He wouldn’t leave us alone. He’d already had a go at me in the dormitory on quite a few occasions,” Stephen said. After the match, the two pupils decided that “he’s got to be stopped”. They informed Mr Collis, who was headmaster of Colet Court from 1957 to 1973 and served as chairman of the Independent Preparatory Schools Association.

Stephen said: “When I next went home on exeat that weekend, the school had telephoned my father to complain that I’d made up terrible stories about Doggett. Dad asked me what had been going on. When I told him, he said he believed me and I’d done the right thing in speaking out, but when I got back to the school the two of us were summoned to Mr Collis’s study.

“I can still see us standing in front of his desk on the Monday morning.He was furious. He said we were wicked for making up such awful lies. Mr Doggett was so appalled and embarrassed by the disgraceful things we’d said that he’d decided to leave the school. We should be thoroughly ashamed of ourselves. He gave us detention.”

Stephen said that another boy in their year suffered far worse crimes at Doggett’s hands: (Norfolk, ‘Boys punished for telling of abuse by teacher’)

The Manchester United/Benfica match in question was the 1968 European Cup Final, at Wembley Stadium, which took place on May 29th, 1968, thus just two-and-a-half weeks after the second performance of Joseph in Westminster Central Hall. This is consistent with Gerald McKnight’s assertion that ‘Doggett’s remarkable vision was barely completed when he left the school’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 86).

Other accounts differ as to the reasons of veracity thereof of his departure; Michael Walsh writes of his having ‘been let go at Colet Court, with rumors of his homosexual predilections swirling about him’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67), whilst Stephen Citron claims Doggett was ‘let go at Colet Court because he had sexually molested one of the choirboys’, causing his career to go into a tailspin (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5); whereas Mantle just says that Doggett ‘left his job at Colet Court’, though later that ‘he had left his post with the choir of Colet Court, but he had been unable to leave them alone’, leaving little doubt who ‘them’ were (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 91, 130). The account by ‘Stephen’ suggests that Doggett left of his own volition, though it is very possible that some pressure was brought upon him to take this decision. Tim Rice writes in his biography, looking back at this incident from the vantage point of Doggett’s suicide in 1978, that:

The only previous time in ten years that Andrew and I had come across such rumours concerning Alan, the allegations were proven to be exactly that, as the time and place of the supposed transgression clashed precisely with a recording date at which all three of us were continually present. It has been known for young boys, and more commonly their parents, to manufacture or exaggerate incidents when they know and (understandably) disapprove of a teacher’s inclinations. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 401)

However, Rice did not discount the possibility that the allegations which would surface ten years later were true, making clear that he was not claiming ‘that Alan was squeaky clean throughout his musical dealings with his singers’ (ibid). His successor in the position was his former assistant at the school, Ian Hunter (ibid), who would go on to present Joseph again various times at the school (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 99-100); Hunter would also go on to become Deputy Headmaster of Colet Court at some time around 1973-74 (my thanks to another former Colet Court pupil for confirming this to me).

Rice’s inclination not to believe the 1968 allegations needs to be revisited (and perhaps his autobiography rewritten) in light of the latest information. Furthermore, there are questions to be asked about what Hunter and others knew about Doggett’s activities at the school, which could hardly have been very secret if carried out with many boys and in open view of others.

Doggett’s subsequent teaching positions after leaving Colet Court have become clearer due to information supplied by various people since the initial version of this article. Michael Walsh and Michael Coveney both mention Doggett’s teaching at the City of London School at the time when Lloyd Webber and Rice wrote their short-lived musical Come Back Richard in November 1969 (from which just one title single was released by RCA that month), which Doggett conducted at the school (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 59; Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 58; see also John Snelson, Andrew Lloyd Webber, with foreword by Geoffrey Block (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 222 n. 9), but Chandler claims that his only connection was through being invited to adjudicate the school’s Junior Music Competition in 1969 (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 282, n. 4). Walsh also writes that Doggett ‘had caught on at another London school and then abruptly left to lead a choir called the London Boy Singers [see below]’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67), but without clarifying if he is again referring to the City of London School here.

Since the first appearance of this blog article and the subsequent articles on Doggett in The Times, two individuals have come forward to confirm that Doggett did indeed work at City of London School on a more permanent basis after leaving Colet Court (thus contradicting the account given in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 282 n. 4, based upon information provided to him by Terry Heard, archivist at City of London School), teaching rowing as well as music (the latter probably only at the junior school).

Furthermore, one woman has contacted me to confirm that Doggett was also Head music teacher at St Mary’s School for Girls in Wiltshire Lane, Norwood, Middlesex (now part of Haydon School) in West London for several years in the 1970s (approximately 1972-75). In 1974, both Lloyd Webber and Rice came to give a talk and share their experiences (see comment from ‘louise’ here). This visit is also confirmed by a comment by Geraldine Maidment (née Stanley) on Friends Reunited boards. Doggett was the first male teacher allowed to teach at St. Mary’s, a school with around 600 girls (it is possible he had been excluded from teaching boys, but not girls, though this at present is just speculation); the girls apparently gave him something of a difficult time, but he gladly allowed them to bring pop records to class and regularly sing numbers from Joseph.

Furthermore, a comment posted below this by Tim Waygood indicates that Doggett taught music at Culford School for just around two terms in 1976-77, where he was resident teacher at Cadogan House, one of three live-in teachers . Waygood recalls Doggett taking boys to his room and beating their bare backsides, and describes him as a ‘terrifying man with a penchant for punishing boys’. In one case, he beat an 11-year old so badly with a hairbrush that he bled; Doggett left the school under hushed circumstances soon afterwards. Waygood was 12 when he heard he had killed himself. Apparently every boy knew how dodgy Doggett was, and there were suspicions about other teachers at the school.

Doggett also taught from August 26th to September 2nd 1969 at one of the Adult Summer Schools with concurrent Choirboys’ Courses for the Royal School of Church Music; this took place at Dean Close School, Cheltenham; fellow teachers included Geoffrey Barber, Michael English, Allen Ferns, Geoffrey Fletcher, W. J. Goodey, Richard Greening. (The Musical Times, Vol. 110, No. 1516 (June 1969), p. 561).

Doggett’s evangelism for popular music with religious themes was undiminished after his departure from Colet Court, and he published an article to that effect in 1969 (Doggett, ‘Pop here, my Lord?’, English Church Music 1969, pp. 37-40, cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 278). Feeling a great pride in Joseph, Doggett advertised for ‘recruits’ in spring 1969 for a ‘mammoth school performance’ of the work, to be held in St. Paul’s, but it appears that this never took place (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 284; this includes a reproduction of the advert).

Doggett continued to make recordings with Lloyd Webber and Rice following that of Joseph; dates here are unclear, so that it is also unclear whether what Rice refers to as ‘Alan Doggett’s boy choir’, which he dubbed ‘the Wonderschool’, was the Colet Court choir or the London Boy Singers. Recordings were made of ‘Bike’, a Syd Barrett number which had appeared on the first Pink Floyd album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967), and also of the Everly Brothers’ ‘Problems’, as well as some songs with the Mixed Bag and David Daltrey, but none of these were ever released by Decca. One which was a single featuring a solo choirboy who worked with Doggett; at present I am unclear as to the title of this song, but the B-side was a version of ‘Any Dream Will Do’, with changed lyrics, recorded in 1969 (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 166).

Around Christmas of 1969, Doggett had heard what would become the theme tune for Jesus Christ Superstar, and suggested to Lloyd Webber and Rice that they might use this for a musical based upon the Daily Mail Air Race; the composers decided instead upon the theme of Christ on the cross (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 109). The recording of the new work (an album which preceded stage performances) was made in 1970. Doggett once again conducted the orchestra and a children’s choir (who are unidentified on the recording), together with singers Murray Head, Ian Gillan, Yvonne Elliman, Victor Brox, Brian Keith, Johnny Gustafson, Barry Dennen and Mike D’Abo, some of whom recorded their contributions after the orchestra and choir had finished in the studio. The part of the priest was played by Paul Raven, then the name of Gary Glitter, who of course was later convicted of multiple child sexual abuse and pornography charges. The orchestra featured strings from Malcolm Henderson’s City of London Ensemble, with Alan O’Duffy as engineer (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 198-199). Doggett also conducted Lloyd Webber’s first film score in 1971, for Stephen Frears’ film Gumshoe (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283).

But Lloyd Webber and Rice noticed that Doggett’s conducting was not really up to professional standards, and he seemed out of his depth with the more hard-rock sections of the Superstar recording, and so he was replaced first by Ian Hunter, then for the 1973 film version by André Previn (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; Mantle, Fanfare, p. 91).

This would not however signify the end of Doggett’s collaborations with Lloyd Webber and Rice; there was a new surge of interest in Joseph at late 1972, for which Doggett was brought back to act as musical director for a production at the Edinburgh Festival, directed by Frank Dunlop, together with some medieval mystery plays. With some changes to the lyrics, the performance of Joseph was nonetheless relatively faithful to the original Doggett production (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 286). This production was then taken to the Roundhouse in London and to the Albery Theatre in the West End, and also televised and broadcast on the ITV network on December 24th, 1972, then again on December 23rd, 1973. The Albery performance was paired with a new Lloyd-Webber and Rice work, Jacob’s Journey, thus yet another premiere for Doggett (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 95-96; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

In 1970, Doggett became Director of the St Barnabas Singers (in Holland Park), who met on the first Sunday of each month. An advert for the choir indicated that the term’s programme would begin on October 4, including new setting of canticles written for the choir by Betty Roe. The address given was 23 Addison Road, W14. (The Musical Times, Vol. 111, No. 1532 (October 1970), p. 1050). He also served as organist at St Barnabas Anglican and Methodist Chuch, from some point around this time; the vicar of this church at the time of his death in 1978 was the Rev. Pat Kirwin (‘Sex case choirmaster killed on railway line’, Evening News, February 8th, 1978).

Then, by December 1971 at the latest, Doggett was working for the London Boy Singers (LBS) (sometimes mistakenly referred to as as the London Boys’ Choir). This was a group founded first in 1961 in order to supply a concert boys’ choir in England, and through the enthusiasm of Benjamin Britten, who served as President. It was initially known as the Finchley Boys’ Choir, formed from the Finchley Children’s Music Group. At first the LBS was run by a Board of Governors, with Eric Walter White as chairman; during this time they performed the premieres of Britten’s King Herod and the Cock and the Twelve Apostles, both dedicated to the choir, in June 1962 in Aldeburgh. The first artistic director was John Andrewes, followed by Jonathan Steele, who was conductor from the outset. However, Steele, broke with Britten and the Governors in 1966. The choir would continue through into the 1970s, and an archive is maintained by the London Boy Singers Association (see ‘London Boy Singers Association’ for more details).

According to one account written after Doggett’s death by a writer who appeared to know Doggett and his work well, Doggett became director of the LBS as early as 1964 (Colin Ward, ‘The saving grace of worldliness’, New Society, July 9th, 1981, p. 72). This is certainly not the account given by the official pages listed above, nor does it concur with the page of archived concert programme of the Finchley Children’s Music Group, which does not mention Doggett once (but mentions Steele twice). A major concert in March 1970 was conducted by Steele (Ronald Crichton, ‘London Boys Singers. St Anne’s and St. Agnes’, Financial Times, March 23rd, 1970, p. 3).I have found no evidence of an earlier involvement of Doggett’s with the choir, so conclude that his work with them probably post-dated Britten’s involvement with them. In December 1971, he was working together with David Rose, and both of their names were given for audition forms (see The Musical Times, Vol. 112, No. 1546 (December 1971), p. 1226). Tim Rice inaccurately refers to the LBS as having been ‘the choir he [Doggett] had formed since leaving regular school employment’ (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 351-352), but it had a longer history than that. In 1973, Doggett who had at some point earlier become Associate Director, was appointed Director of the LBS in succession to Steele (Musical Opinion, Vol. 97 (1973), p. 428). In this capacity, one commentator argues that he brought the choir to international fame (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5). By 1975, a Paul Terry was writing to the Daily Mirror in gushing terms about the LBS, pointing out that they ‘have sung more than 210 part-songs in their concerts over the past six years – all from memory and in nine languages, including Russian, Hebrew and Welsh!’, their average age was 13½, and they were ‘just ordinary lads from schools all over London who love singing’, who had performed in as different locations as the West Country and Rome (where they had been the previous Easter, this was probably a trip to the Vatican referred to in a later article) and elsewhere in Europe (Letter from Paul Terry, Caithness Road, London, ‘Songsters’, Daily Mirror, August 26th, 1975, p. 16; Anthony Holden, ‘Tragic end for the music man’, The Sunday Times, February 19th, 1978).

Amongst the concerts of which there is documentary record of his conducting with the choir are one with Timothy Bond on the organ, at St. Vedast, Foster Lane, EC2, on July 11th, 1974 (The Times, June 6th, 1974, p. 7), one at the Exmouth Pavilion on August 3rd, 1975 (The Musical Times, Vol. 116, No. 1590 (Aug., 1975), p. 732), and one at St. Edmundsbury Cathedral on July 30th 1976 (The Musical Times, Vol. 117, No. 1598 (April 1976), p. 295).

Doggett also conducted a recording of Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf, with the City of London Ensemble, and Frankie Howerd as narrator, Polydor Carnival 2928 201 (1-25), which was reviewed in an issue of Gramophone from 1972 (p. 110). This version had been prepared by Rice, and Rice and Lloyd Webber were credited as producers on the recording (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283). This was not the only art music he conducted during these years; he would also conduct the UK premiere of Schoenberg’s Sonata Fragment (1941) in 1974 (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 276, n. 1).

Doggett turned to trying to create a cantata/musical of his own along the lines of those of Lloyd Webber and Rice (perhaps, as Chandler suggests (‘Alan Doggett’, p. 284) as a way of realising his vision of a ‘mammoth school performance’ of Joseph); this would be Jason and the Golden Fleece, for which he wrote the music, and co-wrote the lyrics with the Hampstead poet Rita Ford (1931-1985); it was described as ‘A New Musical for Schools’ (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 285-286). The work received its first concert performance at St Barnabas Church, Addison Road, London W14 (where he worked with the St Barnabas Singers mentioned above) on Wednesday June 27th, 1973, hosted by City of London Productions (Advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 114, No. 1564 (June 1973), p. 589). A choir of 250 children were involved, a combination of the LBS, the Islington Green school choir, and also a selection of ‘largely untrained children’ from St. Barnabas and St Philip’s schools, and St Peter’s school in Hammersmith (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 286). The familial resemblances of this work to Joseph, not least in terms of both works’ use of a narrator, have been commented upon by various people, though also its weaknesses compared to the work of Lloyd Webber and Rice, both by critics at the time and later writers (see Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 285-287; Chandler is concerned to defend this work against the idea it might simply be a poor man’s Joseph). At the outset it received positive reviews from Hilary Finch and Barbara Denny, reviewing for the South Kensington News and Chelsea Post and Kensington News and Post (cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

The work would receive a further performance in a revised version on March 9th, 1977 at Westminster Central Hall, with large forces drawn from many London schools (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 287). This performance, however, received a markedly downbeat review from Merion Bowen, who wrote that the work ‘was not at all edifying’ and that Doggett’s music displays little of the flair shown by Andrew Lloyd Webber and others in the same vein, and Ford’s lyrics aren’t exactly inspired’ (Merion Bowen, ‘Jason and the Golden Fleece’, The Guardian, March 10th, 1977).

Despite having been replaced for the film version of Superstar, Doggett was involved in part in the conducting duties for Lloyd Webber’s score for the 1974 film of The Odessa File (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283). Also, at some time in the mid-1970s, whilst Lloyd Webber and Rice were working on Evita, Rice also wrote some lyrics for a children’s album, Barbapapa, which was a spin-off from a Dutch TV series, and included Ed Stewart on the recording; Rice brought in Doggett and the LBS for the sessions (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 325).

When it came to the recording of Evita in 1976 (the first production would not come until two years later, after Doggett’s death), Doggett was credited as ‘Children’s Choirmaster, Musical Coordinator (names of all the main performers can be found here); the main conductor and choir director was Anthony Bowles. Rice would later write that Doggett ‘was gently relegated to directing the London Boy Singers’ (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 351-352), though he appears to have been quite happy in his allotted role (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 116).

The end came for Doggett in early 1978. As with his leaving Colet Court, accounts differ of the actual events. Michael Walsh writes that ‘When one of the boys [of the LBS] accused Doggett of molestation – apparently the accusation was false – the conductor was arrested and, as a condition of his bail, was forbidden to have any contact with his chorus’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67). Stephen Citron, who as mentioned earlier reports the molestation at Colet Court as an established fact, says that on this occasion Doggett was again ‘accused of molestation – this time presumably falsely – he was forbidden to have any contact with his chorus’ (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5). Michael Coveney writes that Doggett ‘was still teaching and running his boys’ choirs but he was threatened with allegations about his private life and preferred not to risk public disgrace’ and that:

The tragedy is that it later emerged there was nothing on the files that was ever going to make any kind of case against him in court. Lloyd Webber remains convinced that Doggett would never have been guilty of taking advantage of any young person in his charge: ‘His main talent was in helping children to make music. He was convinced that every young person had music in him or her, and that it was never too late to stop learning. (Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 112).

All three such writers assume either that Doggett was innocent or that the case against him would not stand up in court; Mantle on the other hand writes about ‘forbidden love’ which ‘took other, sadder forms’ and reports the ‘allegation of indecency’ right after arguing that ‘he [Doggett] had been unable to leave them alone [after leaving his post at Colet Court]’, presumably a reference to a proclivity for boys (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 130-131). McKnight does not even seem to have registered the event, claiming that Doggett died in 1973 (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 99), whereas Rice hedges from committing himself to a view of Doggett’s guilt or innocence in 1978 (unlike in 1968) (see below). Another book on Lloyd Webber by John Snelson (Snelson, Lloyd Webber) only mentions Doggett once in passing in the main text, and briefly in two endnotes, so does not consider his death at all. But in most cases the defence or denial seems beset by doubt on the parts of the authors, suggesting their verdicts may reflect what they wish to have been the case rather than necessarily what did transpire.

Doggett was due to conduct a further performance of Jason and the Golden Fleece at the Royal Albert Hall on February 23rd 1978, with a choir of a thousand singers, entitled ‘The London Boy Singers And a Massed Choir of 1000’ who he had selected and coached, as well as many other children playing recorders and percussion, all from around 34 different schools; the performance was to be on behalf of Help the Aged. A few adult celebrities were also involved, including Ed Stewart, Ian Lavender, and Barney the Clown (‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, 24/2/78; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 287). An article from three years after his death (to which I will return below) mentioned that according to some press reports, police had intended to interview every one of these thousand boys (Ward, ‘The saving grace of worldliness’, p. 72).

What is clear is that, following an investigation by detectives in Hammersmith, Doggett was charged on February 8th, 1978 in West London Magistrate’s Court and remanded on bail of £1000 (on condition that he made no contact with any member of the choir or their parents), hours after which, in a depressed state, he travelled back to his birthplace of Iver, and lay down on a railroad track so as to be run over by a train (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; ‘Sex case choirmaster killed on railway line’, Evening News, February 8th, 1978; ‘Sex-case death’, Daily Mirror, February 9th, 1978, p. 3; ‘Sex case man killed’, Daily Mail, February 9th, 1978, p. 9; ‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978). Immediately after Doggett’s death, one unnamed friend was quoted as saying that he did not think Doggett ‘could face the shame of having the whole issue dragged through the courts’, whilst the Rev Kirwin, vicar at St Barnabas, described Doggett as ‘a friend for ten years’ who ‘was one of the kindest and most helpful persons I have known’ (‘Sex case choirmaster killed on railway line’)

Doggett had sent handwritten suicide notes to a few friends (one article claims there were four, including one to his father, one to an unnamed clergyman, one to Salisbury – ‘Sex case choirmaster killed on railway line’, Evening News, February 8th, 1978; another that there were two, to his sister and a clergyman – ‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978), which were delivered a few days later (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67). One of these was to Rice, who received two envelopes, dated a week apart, upon returning from a trip to Australia, both from Doggett. The first was a plea for an opportunity to earn some royalties from work he continued to do with his boys’ choirs on Joseph; the second was the suicide note. Rice quotes part of it in his autobiography, and other sections were quoted in an article published eleven days after Doggett’s death:

I am sorry if any of you have been hurt or will be hurt by the events of the past few days. Do not grieve, do not feel remorse, do not feel ‘We should have done more’. (Anthony Holden, ‘Tragic end for the music man’, The Sunday Times, February 19th, 1978).

We all have to sail our own ship through life and this ship has capsized. No one could have helped, it was my destiny. Pray for me, my parents, family and friends. The way I have chosen, the way of the Greeks, though hard, is best. I am sorry I have not completely lived up to it. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 400; section from ‘We all..’ to ‘…my destiny’, in Holden, ‘Tragic end’, above).

But remember me, please, for the good things, the happy times. The meals, the drink, the conversation, the good companionship. Remember the best bits in my character; there were, i hope, more pluses than minuses in the mixture. (Holden, ‘Tragic end’).

Rice, writing about the ‘Allegations of impropriety with young boys’ which ‘had apparently surfaced (not for the first time)’, whereupon ‘Alan had been arrested and charged’, leading to his suicide (ibid), wrote the following in his autobiography:

I say ‘not for the first time’ but I cannot believe that Alan was truly a danger, or even a minor menace, to the many boys he had worked with over the years. The only previous time in ten years that Andrew and I had come across such rumours concerning Alan, the allegations were proven to be exactly that, as the time and place of the supposed transgression clashed precisely with a recording date at which all three of us were continually present. It has been known for young boys, and more commonly their parents, to manufacture or exaggerate incidents when they know and (understandably) disapprove of a teacher’s inclinations. I am certainly not saying that this was the case with the circumstances that led to Alan’s awful end, or that Alan was squeaky clean throughout his musical dealings with his singers. However I suspect that there was a lot less to the cause of his tragedy than met the eye – just enough to render him incapable of facing the humiliation and shame that he knew he had brought upon himself. It was hard for me to believe that Alan, working with boys so closely for so many years, could have got away with any such behaviour for so long without being caught and hard to speak about him at his funeral, which I readily agreed to do. He played a crucial part in Andrew’s and my success, was an excellent choirmaster, and was never less than a highly amusing and generous companion. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 401)

Lloyd Webber and Rice themselves published a ‘Tribute’ in the Evening Standard a week after Doggett’s death (February 15th, 1978, p. 25), saying that ‘[w]e ourselves owe him a great deal’ (cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277).

In the next issue of Magpie, the following text appeared:

Dear Sir,

‘Letters’ is a most acceptable way for members to express their opinions. Usually I don’t, but this time I am so shocked and distressed as a paedophile, and lover of music, that I will sound off.

On February 9th the Director of the ‘London Boys Singers’ was a troubled man. He attended the Magistrate’s Court, accused of ‘Indecency’ with a 10 year old boy.

I know none of the facts of his story, but can well imagine the innocence with which this act of love and affection had taken place.

No doubt Mr. Doggett, considering his social position, found his contact with the law enforcement people to be unacceptable to him. He was bailed, pending trial. He went to a pub and talked a while, wrote some letters to friends and relatives and then threw himself under a train.

If this man chose death as a means of protecting his beliefs towards Paedophilia, I wonder how many of those, who consider the bloody futile laws of this land to be correct and proper, would be willing to support their theories with their life?

It is of the utmost importance that Paedophiles be permitted to express themselves without oppression. It is the ONLY way to be sure that tragedies of this nature will be averted in the future.

My most sincere condolences to the members of the London Boy Singers.

Your loss is total.

Paul Andrews. (Letters, Magpie, Issue No. 10 (no date), p. 4)

Andrews was a treasurer of the Paedophile Information Exchange, at least in September 1978, when his house was raided, together with those of chairman Tom O’Carroll, secretary David Grove, and a Mr Ralph Alden (Gerard Kemp, ‘Child sex leaders raided’, Sunday Express, June 18th, 1978); Andrews had retired from this position by November 1979. He appeared in court with O’Carroll and Grove on July 26th, 1979 at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court on a charge of ‘Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals’ (at least as reported in Pan: A Magazine of Boy Love, Vol. 1, No. 3 (November 1979), p. 6). In 2007, a Paul Andrews, 41, was jailed indefinitely after pleading guilty at Preston Crown Court to four charges of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, one of attempted sexual activity with a child and one of causing a child to watch sexual activity. The boys involved were aged 11 and 13, and the offences had taken place in Andrews’ flat in Meetings View, Barrow. He had previously received convictions in 1997 for offences including indecent assault and received a three year probationary sentence, but then was jailed for four months after breaching his court order (J. Connor, ‘Pervert Locked Up Indefinitely’, North West Evening Mail, November 5th, 2007). However, it is not clear if this is definitely the same Paul Andrews (this latter would have been just 23 at the time of the Magpie piece).

It is not clear from the letter whether Andrews knew Doggett personally, but the tone of the letter suggests some familiarity with the case.

The February 23rd performance of Jason and the Golden Fleece at the Royal Albert Hall became a memorial concert for Doggett, also in aid of the organisation Help the Aged (‘The show that must go on’, News of the World, February 13th, 1978). Michael Stuckey, who had worked alongside Doggett for the 1972 productions of Joseph, took over the conducting (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; ‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285). The concert was reviewed enthusiastically and with some poignance by none other than Derek Jewell, who had been so important in bringing Joseph to the attention of a wider audience ten years previously (Derek Jewell, ‘Joy fills the Albert Hall’, The Sunday Times, February 26th, 1978). The work would also receive a further performance in 1979 at the Connaught Theatre, Worthing, with an adult cast of around 25, and with Hugh Janes, who would later obtain the rights to the work, as narrator (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

Another article appeared in Magpie in the following issue, this time from an anonymous contributor:

A letter in Magpie 10 reported and commented on the recent suicide of Alan Doggett three weeks before he was to conduct the London Boys Choir, together with massed choirs of other children at the Albert Hall. On the night of that concert the programme contained an insert describing Alan Doggett’s years of dedicated service and paying tribute to his friendliness, integrity and loyalty.

Shortly after this date a requiem mass was said for him at the Holy Cross Priory in Leicester by the Reverend Father Michael Ingram.

On Saturday 20th May a memorial service will be held to commemorate Alan’s life and work. It will start at 3 p.m. and will be held at St. Barnabas Church, Addison Road, London, W14, taking the form of a choral evensong, performed by the London Boys Choir.

These religious functions, one Roman, the other Anglican must be seen not only as ceremonies of intercession and remembrance, but also as containing an element of protest. It would seem to be true that in today’s society religious organisations provide almost the only vehicle whereby such a protest can be made. (‘Alan Doggett – Memorial Service’, Magpie, Issue No. 11, May 1978).

Father Michael Ingram, a Dominican priest, was himself a contributor to multiple issues of Magpie (see my other blogs for some examples of this), writing amongst other things about his supposed counselling of young boys over their sexual hang-ups and difficulties with their parents. He was found guilty in August 2000 of sexual offences, including one serious sexual offence, one offence of gross indecency, and four of indecent assault, against six boys committed between 1971 and 1978 (‘Former priest guilty of sex abuse’, The Tablet, August 19th, 2000, p. 26). A series of reports from the trial in the Leicester Mercury (from July 31st to August 15th, 2000, covering the course of the trial) detailed the awful events and traumatic experiences of Ingram’s victims as revealed in court, and how Ingram preyed upon those from under-privileged families and broken homes, some of them referred to him by social services. Ingram would also encourage boys to compete for his attentions and affection, especially on holiday trips. A letter to The Tablet in 2012 (Ingram had died in 2000) spoke of Ingram’s involvement with PIE, and also contribution to the book The Betrayal of Youth; Radical perspectives on childhood sexuality, intergenerational sex, and the social oppression of children and young people, edited Warren Middleton (London: CL Publications, 1986) (Middleton was a PIE Executive Committee member and former editor of Understanding Paedophilia – see my blog post here for samples from this publication), which featured many essays from individuals connected to PIE (and by feminist writer Beatrice Faust and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell – see here for a list of contents and quotes). Nurse was surprised that despite the openness with which Ingram expressed his views on the desirability of sexual relationships between adults and children, he was still ‘remained in active ministry and was permitted to work with vulnerable and disadvantaged children’ (Richard Scorer, ‘Turning a blind eye’, The Tablet, November 10th, 2012, pp. 18-19).

Over three years after Doggett’s death, an article in New Society looking back at his plight also bears consideration, and suggests the author knew Doggett and more about the situation than he is revealing. This author was Colin Ward (1924-2010), a writer for anarchist publications, noted for an important book The Child in the City (London: The Architectural Place, 1977) (for more details on Ward, see Ken Worpole, ‘Colin Ward obituary’, The Guardian, February 22nd, 2010). Ward’s article is worth quoting from in detail, and is quite shocking by contemporary standards:

Chaps in pubs and clubs nod sagely at the mention of schoolmasters, scoutmaster and choirmasters. We all know what motivates them. It’s a bit embarrassing, to say the least, for all those people in these occupations whose devoted service is untinged by sexual attraction, but the stereotype exists and is quite often true.

Every now and then someone breaks ranks and points out (as the therapist Dr Richard Hauser did, to the accompaniment of a chorus of parliamentary questions) that if there were some machine for screening out those with a sexual attraction towards children, the caring professions would lose their most valuable people).

But publicly we brush aside ordinary wordly truths taken for granted by the chaps in pubs and clubs, or, worse, treat them as sudden terrible revelations. The recent moral crusade against paedophiles in the United States has led to all sorts of worthy people abandoning their voluntary activities in the boy scouts or in the Big Brother organisation (of adult males befriending boys from fatherless families) for fear of being identified with them.

It is interesting to see that the homosexual lobby there is sufficiently self-assured to fight back and to defend in the courts the right of its own paedophile minority to be scout leaders or Big Brothers, just as it is encouraging to read that the city authorities in Amsterdam have allowed a known paedophile – with a prison sentence behind him – to adopt a troublesome 13 year old boy from a children’s home. To harness people’s wayward and personal predilections to a socially desirable end is a mark, not of irresponsibility, but of civilisation. (Paeophilia, it is worth repeating, means the attraction of men towards boys. It’s pederasty when it turns into sexual activity.)

[……..]If Lewis Carroll had been born 100 years later, he, with his delight in taking nude photographs of his little girl friends, would find himself in the dock at the Old Bailey, charged under the Protection of Children Act, 1978.

Consider the cases of two choirmasters. Years ago, a celebrated college director of music (now dead) appeared before a private university court following charges that he had molested a choirboy. He was reprimanded and went back to his honoured place at High Table and to his work with the choir he had made world-famous. Contrast his experience with that of Alan Doggett. If you know Doggett’s name it is because you saw it on the record sleeve of Evita, where he is described as musical coordinator, though he did not live to see the stage production. He was found dead on a railway line three years ago.

On the very day that the coroner pronounced a verdict of suicide, he was to have conducted at the Albert Hall, a charity performance of his “pop extravaganza,” Jason and the Golden Fleece, with a thousand schoolboy singers and instrumentalists. He was a music teacher who had commissioned from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, then in their teens, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat as a school opera. Later he was their musical director for Jesus Christ, Superstar. In 1964 [probably an erroneous date] he had become the director of the London Boy Singers, an ensemble founded at the instigation of Benjamin Britten in 1961. Everyone in the musical world paid tribute to his immense energy and his inspired teaching.

The day after his death, friends received through the post a note from him which said, “We all have to sail our own ship through life, and this ship has now capsized. No one could have helped. It was my destiny.” On the day of his death, he had been committed for trial on a charge of committing an act of indecency with a minor. According to the press, the police had intended to interview each of the thousand boys in the Albert Hall production.

I know young men who were members of that choir and who remember Alan Doggett with immense gratitude and respect. I have myself a family of young musicians, who, if any unexpected extra-musical experiences came their way, were sensible enough to handle them in their own way and keep quiet about them.

What is absolutely appalling is the degree of retribution exacted by the community for minor indiscretions which have been going on, as we all know, since the days of the ancient Greeks. In common, I imagine, with many readers of this journal (though only Tailgunner Parkinson, who is always ready to stick his neck out, spoke up for him), I reacted with horror and unbelief at the two-year sentence passed on Tom O’Carroll, after a re-trial.

He was found guilty, you will recall, under one of those obsolete statues which have to be dug up on these occasions, of “corrupting public morals” by publishing the information bulletin of the Paedophile Information Exchange. There was no evidence that he had committed any offence against any child. (The only charge of this nature against him was withdrawn last month and he was awarded costs).

[….More on O’Carroll and Paedophilia: the radical case…. – this awful publication can be found complete online here]

Another court case, involving incest, followed by the murder of a father by his daughter, which was reported on the same day as the result of the PIE trial, presents the other side of the argument. Statistically, the commonest known form of child-adult sexual activity is father-daughter incest. The enormous publicity given to cases of the sexual murder of children shouldn’t blind us to the fact that such instances are no more typical of the paedophiliac scene than rape-and-murder is characteristic of ordinary sex.

Of the millions of grams of sexual fluids ejaculated every night, most are expended in socially harmless ways, and, in spite of Roman Catholic teaching, not many of them are involved in the reproduction of our race: something for which we should all be thankful. But are we really so worried if some boy in the summer camp is masturbating with the youth club leader, instead of by himself? Don’t we all know that the investigation of the offence is ten times as traumatic as the actual experience itself?

[….More on O’Carroll….]

What really touched me about his [O’Carroll’s] book was the way he quoted his glowing testimonials as a teacher. I am sure that he is a marvellous teacher and that this is a by-product of his sexual inclinations. But this has not saved him, or hundreds of other men like him, from the horrors of a jail sentence on this kind of charge. The Department of Education has a blacklist, which we aren’t entitled to see, on which his name must be underlined.

Yet if we delve into personal memories, we find that innumerable experiences with people like him, far from involving any kind of violence or painful physical penetration, have simply been an aspect of growing up. I can remember the fumbling fondlings of a PE teacher as flattering, rather than terrifying. My wife remembers the attentions of a beloved teacher as yet another initiation into the joys of sex.

Here, as in so many other aspects of social life, there is a fantastic gap between what we all know to be true and our accepted public attitudes. Something we can learn from those old gents in pubs and clubs is the saving grace of worldliness.

This is common of the type of language, rhetoric and ideological assumptions which permeate pro-paedophile discourse. It portrays paedophilia as natural amongst those in the teaching or caring professions, makes any other view out as being akin to a witch-hunt, advocates ‘keeping quiet’ as the only ‘sensible’ response on the part of children, attempts to legitimise the practice by reference to historical figures (and the ancient Greeks), appropriates gay liberation towards its own ends, evokes the cultured (in this case musical) aspects of paedophiles, justifies masturbation of minors, claims that to investigate such offences is worse than the offences themselves, and betrays a type of Stockholm syndrome when speaking of one’s own experiences of sexual abuse. And it is most telling that the only two names who Ward discusses in detail are Doggett and O’Carroll.

Various accounts of Doggett’s character help to complete the picture. Jonathan Mantle shows the awkwardness of ‘the prematurely balding Doggett with his thick black spectacles and his vulnerability to mockery’ which contrasted strongly with the ‘mop-haired, feminine looking youth whose facial hair seemed to be concentrated in a pair of thick, black eyebrows which rose and fell incessantly’ of Lloyd Webber (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 42). Mantle also writes:

Doggett was a split personality: outwardly a charming, witty man, a competent keyboard player and arranger and a highly successful architect of the Colet Court choir, but inwardly a nervy, intense homosexual of unhappy inclinations which would eventually destroy him. He had taken a shine to Andrew at an early age and became his self-appointed musical minder, making sure the young composer’s phenomenal aptitude for tunes was translated into music whose time signature always worked and bars added up correctly. (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 30-31)

He further suggests that Ian Hunter, whilst appreciating deeply what Doggett was able to do for the Colet Court choir, had ‘few illusions about the more volatile aspects of his personality’ (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 42-43); McKnight quotes Hunter as saying that Doggett ‘was not very brilliant musically’, but had a great ‘ability to communicate with kids’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 86).

Gerald McKnight refers to Doggett as ‘a sad, pathetically mixed-up man in private life’, though ‘his passion for music endeared him to Dr and Mrs Lloyd Webber’, who the composers regularly ragged, using instructions such as ‘With un-Doggett-like expression!’ and ‘Doggett Mobbed!’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 85, 99).

Mantle points out however how central a part of Lloyd Webber’s social circle was Doggett (together with David Crewe-Read, Gray Watson, Bridget (Biddy) Hayward and Jamie Muir), whilst implying that Doggett’s place in this circle depended upon ‘past glories’; in his later work with Lloyd Webber, according to Mantle, he came to ‘ look more and more like a man who had been left behind’ (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 117-118, 131).

The second Magpie article, with its reference to the two religious services ‘containing an element of protest’ and how ‘religious organisations provide almost the only vehicle whereby such a protest can be made’, is ominous, and suggests a deeper knowledge of Doggett and his activities. The inquest found that Doggett had only written two letters, which he had posted from Paddington Station on the evening he died – one to his sitter and the other to a clergyman (‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978; this article dates the inquest as taking place three weeks previously, but this is impossible because of the date of Doggett’s death) (there was no mention of the letter to Rice). Who was the clergyman in question?

Otherwise, the article by Colin Ward, the fact of their having been two different pieces on Doggett in Magpie, and the fact that in all of these cases the language is quite typical of paedophile parlance (especially in PIE publications), combined with the various accounts of Doggett’s abuse of children in both 1968 and 1978, certainly indicate that more information is needed to establish the truth. Doggett was indeed a fully paid-up member of PIE; as many such members have been implicated in international child abuse and pornography networks, as well as rings of abusers, the implications are extremely disturbing for one who worked with such a range of children (I would estimate around 1500-2000 just for the period 1968-78, after Doggett left Colet Court).

Doggett’s story is tragic, and he undoubtedly needed help and support such as might have avoided involvement with the dark world of PIE instead. But the potential tragedy for many who worked with him, and how this all might supply further important information about the workings of PIE and its involvement with abuse networks, remains the important question today. At the time of David Chandler’s article in 2012, Ian Hunter was certainly still alive; others interviewed included Roger Ford (husband of the late Rita), and Julian Lloyd Webber. There were literally thousands of boys who studied with Doggett (who would be in their 50s and 60s at the time of writing), so many who could shed further light onto what exactly went on, not to mention the many other musicians who worked with him, and others mentioned in this article. I appeal to those who knew Doggett to help to establish further the truth about and extent of his activities once and for all.

Anyone wishing to speak under conditions of complete confidentiality is welcome to e-mail me at ian@ianpace.com , and I can give advice regarding what to do with any information.


Alan Doggett, first conductor of Joseph and Jesus Christ Superstar, and the Paedophile Information Exchange

[Since this article first appeared, a lot of new information has surfaced in terms of Doggett’s activities at Colet Court School. With this in mind, I have produced a revised version, which can be read here. I will however keep this original version online as well]

An article was published in the Daily Mail in December (Guy Adams, ‘Apologists for Paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children’, Daily Mail, 14/12/13, updated 20/12/13 ), which pre-empted the rush of media coverage which has emerged in the last two weeks. This concerned the connection between the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Deputy Leader of the Labour Party Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey, Shadow Minister for Policing and former union official, and former cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt, all involved with the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s and 1980s, and was affiliated to PIE (and took out an ad in their journal Magpie in 1979). I have blogged at length reproducing documents relating to NCCL and PIE (see here, here, here, here, here, here and here), and also on the Whitehall senior civil servant (formerly a church minister and teacher of theology in India, later a musicologist and classical scholar) Clifford Hindley, who has been identified as the individual who secured government funding for PIE.

But another name appeared in the December article, which has not really been investigated further prior to this article: that of boys’ choir conductor and teacher Alan Doggett (1936-1978), who had an extended and important relationship with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice. A letter about the suicide of Doggett in 1978 appeared in Issue 10 of Magpie (Letters, Magpie, Issue No. 10 (no date), p. 4) and a notice of his memorial service in the subsequent issue (‘Alan Doggett – Memorial Service’, Magpie, Issue No. 11 (May 1978), p. 2 – both this and the letter can be read in the fourth of my PIE blog posts linked to above), to both of which I will return presently. The Mail article named Doggett as a member of PIE; a source close to the heart of current police investigations has confirmed to me that this was definitely the case.

Doggett is listed in the second Magpie article as having worked as conductor of the London Boys’ Choir (erroneously titled here – this was the London Boy Singers), and was to be remembered for his ‘friendliness, integrity and loyalty’. But his claim to fame is stronger than this; as has been chronicled in various books and articles about or by Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, he was responsible for commissioning and conducting Joseph and his Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat, conducting the recording of Jesus Christ Superstar, and sharing that for Evita, as well as writing his own musical, Jason and the Golden Fleece, inspired by these earlier examples. A scholarly article argues for Doggett’s close involvement with Lloyd Webber and Rice, saying that ‘he was effectively a third member of the team prior to the international success of Jesus Christ Superstar’ (David Chandler, ‘’Everyone should have the opportunity’: Alan Doggett and the modern British Music’, Studies in Musical Theatre, Vol. 6, No. 3 (2012), pp. 275-289 (quotation from p. 275) – this article mentions nothing about the more troubling aspects of Doggett’s life, other than mentioning in passing that he committed suicide), whilst Andrew Lloyd Webber paid fulsome tribute to Doggett in an article published in the Mail in 2012 (‘’I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’ says Andrew Lloyd Webber as he opens up about the highs and lows of his career’, Daily Mail, September 24th, 2012).

In this article, I give an overview of Doggett’s life and work, and appeal to those who may have known or worked with him in (especially those who studied at Westminster Under School, Colet Court School, or who sung in the London Boy Singers or in the larger massed boy choirs he assembled) to come forward if they have any relevant information.

Alan Doggett was born on November 29th, 1936, in Epsom, Surrey. His father was Kenneth Raymond Doggett, who edited the shipping journal Dock and Harbour Authority. Alan grew up in Iver, Buckinghamshire, where he took piano lessons from an early age, and attended Colet Court school, before going on to read history at Selwyn College, Cambridge. One account describes him as ‘a discreet homosexual’ who ‘ was enthusiastic about music but only modestly gifted’ (Michael Walsh, Andrew Lloyd Webber: His Life and Works (Harmondsworth: Viking, 1989), p. 37). His first job was as a history teacher at Westminster Under School, where he doubled as a music teacher and led the school choir (ibid). In this capacity he taught the young Julian Lloyd Webber (b. 1951), who attended the school between 1961 and 1963 and was a member of the choir (Tim Rice, Oh, What a Circus: The Autobiography (Coronet Books, 1999), p. 131). Through Julian, Alan Doggett came to meet his father William Lloyd Webber, and began to take an interest in the compositions of Julian’s brother Andrew Lloyd Webber (b. 1948), helping him with notational matters (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37). At some point during this period, Doggett also served as a vicar-choral at St Paul’s Cathedral, alongside Ian Hunter, who would become his assistant at Colet Court and later his successor (Jonathan Mantle, Fanfare: The Unauthorised Biography of Andrew Lloyd Webber (M. Joseph, 1989), pp. 30, 41).

In 1963, Doggett was appointed as Director of Music at Colet Court, an independent boys’ preparatory school established in 1881 which is linked to St Paul’s School, and whose headmaster from 1957 to 1973 was Henry J.G. Collis (1913-1994). Some prominent alumni of Colet Court include Greville Ewan Janner, Baron Janner of Braunstone (1928-), Sir Paul Lever (1944-), Paul Anthony Cartledge (1947-), John Cody Fidler Simpson (1944-), Sir Nicholas Felix Stadlen (1950-), Lloyd Marshal Dorfman (1952-), Jonathan Simon Speelman (1956-), the Conservative MP Dominic Grieve MP (1956-), Oliver Tom Parker (1960-) and Barnaby David Waterhouse Thompson (1961-) (David Bussey, John Colet’s Children: The Boys of St Paul’s School in later life (1509-2009) (Oxford: Gresham Books, 2009), pp. 157, 169, 172, 174-175, 182, 185, 188, 193, 196-197; parliamentary profile of Dominic Grieve).

At Colet Court, Doggett he brought in a system of vocal training based upon that of the Vienna Boys’ Choir (most distinct from traditional English methods), as well as finding external performance opportunities for the choir (Gerald McKnight, Andrew Lloyd Webber (London, Toronto, Sydney & New York: Granada Publishing, 1984), p. 85; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277 – all other information not sourced elsewhere comes from here. Some of Chandler’s information on Doggett’s early life comes from correspondence with Doggett’s sister Jennifer Acornley, Ian Hunter, Doggett’s successor at Colet Court, and Julian Lloyd Webber). He also worked as organist at the school, at least by December 1964 (At least by December 1964. See advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 105, No. 1462 (December 1964), p. 936. Doggett had a letter published in The Musical Times in August 1966, entitled ‘Let the Children Sing’, just talking about the nature of school choirs; he was then listed as belonging to St Paul’s Junior School (the same thing as Colet Court). See The Musical Times, Vol. 107, No. 1482 (August 1966), pp. 687-688).

In 1964, Doggett set up a choir at Emmanuel Parish Church, West Hampstead; his address at the time was given as SW1 2580 (see advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 105, No. 1451 (Jan 1964), p. 64). The vicar at the church during this period was The Reverend Jack Dover Wellman (The Rev Dr Peter Galloway, ‘A short history and guide to Emmanuel Church West Hampstead’) , who appears to have been an eccentric figure who wrote two books entitled A Priest’s Psychic Diary, with introduction by Richard Baker (London: SPCK, 1977) and A Priest and the Paranormal (Worthing: Churchman, 1988). Wellman also appeared on an edition of the late night Channel 4 programme After Dark, on April 30th, 1988, to discuss the subject ‘Bewitched, Bothered, or Bewildered?’, chaired by Anthony Wilson (see ‘After Dark 2’).

In 1965, Doggett already became more closely associated with Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, helping out with some of the demonstration recordings of their musical The Likes of Us, written that year, about the life of Thomas Barnardo. Already on these recordings the Colet Court choir featured as the homeless children who Barnardo was helping, in stage cockney accents (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 131; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277, Mantle, Fanfare, p. 30). Rice described him as an ‘extremely camp teacher, who was some ten years older than I was’, and ‘a talented music master, though a less talented composer, always on the lookout for a new way of instilling enthusiasm for music into his young charges (aged eight to thirteen)’ (ibid).

In late 1967, Doggett contacted Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, to request a cantata for the school’s annual spring concert. The headmaster of Colet Court, Henry Collis, had been quickly won over by Doggett’s proposal, despite some conservative doubts about setting a biblical story to popular music (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 85-86). To Lloyd Webber and Rice, Doggett made clear that he wanted something short and sharp, ideally a cantata on a religious theme, a story through song, though giving them carte blanche over the subject matter (Michael Coveney, The Andrew Lloyd Webber Story (London: Arrow Books, 2000), p. 53; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 131; Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 41-42). Doggett nonetheless suggested a biblical subject, thinking of what Michael Coveney refers to as that sort of unbuttoned Christian sing-along represented by such pieces as Herbert Chappell’s The Daniel Jazz (which he had produced the year before), Michael Flanders and Joseph Horovitz’s Captain Noah and His Floating Zoo and indeed Benjamin Britten’s exemplary Noye’s Fludde (Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 53). Rice found the story of Jacob’s son, Joseph, who was landed in trouble by his dreams and coat of many colours, leading his brothers to sell him into slavery in Egypt, where he becomes a prophetic guru to the Pharaoh, in The Wonder Book of Bible Stories (ibid; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 132). This would become Joseph and the Amazing Technicolour Dreamcoat. Lloyd Webber and Doggett worked together at the music room of Colet Court whilst the work was being composed, and Lloyd Webber was prepared to accept suggestions from the choir (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 42; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 133, 135).

The world premiere of Joseph took place on Friday March 1st, 1968, at 2:30 pm, in the Assembly Hall of Colet Court School, conducted by Doggett himself, an ad hoc pop group called The Mixed Bag, including Rice (who took the part of Elvis/Pharaoh) and singer David Daltrey, a cousin of Roger’s (from The Who), who led the principal solo numbers for Joseph himself (see Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 136-142, for a detailed account; also McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 87-88, for Ian Hunter’s account). The school was itself about to move from its 1890 premises in Hammersmith to new buildings across the river in Barnes, and this performance would be the last in the old Assembly Hall (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37). The first half of the concert consisted of performances by the pianist John Lill, and both Julian and William Lloyd Webber; for Joseph, Ian Hunter played the piano and Julian played the cello (Stephen Citron, Stephen Sondheim and Andrew Lloyd Webber: The New Musical (London: Chatto & Windus, 2001), p. 117). Several hundred parents were present and clapped politely (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 37), but also on that day, a representative of the music publisher Novello’s, who had been invited to the premiere by Doggett and had given it an advance listing in what was then their flagship periodical, The Musical Times (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 279-280 – Chandler is sceptical about the account offered later in Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 148), offered to take on the piece, and pay £100 for it, as an educational work for schools (Lloyd Webber, ‘I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’).

The next performance took place at Westminster Central Hall, on May 12th, 1968, and involved 300 boys from Colet Court, conducted by Doggett (advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 109, No. 1503 (May 1968) p. 464. It had been organised by William Lloyd Webber, who was organist and musical director at Central Hall, and who played the organ in the performance (Hunter played the harpsichord) (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 45). The first half of the concert, attended by around two thousand people, including many parents, consisted of performances by the pianist John Lill, and both Julian and William (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 117; Lloyd Webber, ‘I owe my success to an abseiling vicar’). One boy in the choir was Nicholas Jewell, who had persuaded his father Derek Jewell, pop critic for the Sunday Times, to attend the performance (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 88-89). Jewell published an extremely positive review, which recognised the importance of Doggett’s role, the following weekend in the Sunday Times, on May 19th, 1968 (see Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 46-47, for the review; see also McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 91-93, Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 282), which caused jubilation amongst all involved with the production.

Eight weeks later, a recording was being made for Decca at the studios at Abbey Road of an expanded version for augmented ensemble with solo voices (a cast consisting of Terry Saunders, David Daltrey, Malcolm Parry, Tim Rice, John Cook, Bryan Watson) and rock musicians. The twelve or so Colet Court choirboys served as a backing group, with Doggett conducting and a ‘Joseph Consortium’ with William Lloyd Webber helping out on organ, and Martin Wilcox on harpsichord; some vocal backing was provided by Andrew and Tim Rice (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 47; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 148; the recording was Scepter/Capital (S) SMAS 93738. See Jerry Osborne, Movie/TV Soundtracks and Original Cast Recordings Price and Reference Guide (Jerry Osborne: Jerry Osborne Enterprises, 2002), p. 1982; see Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 281-282 for Rice and other’s attempts to marginalise the importance of Doggett and Novello’s in this process). Jonathan Mantle points out that ‘Half the boys of Colet Court were bussed over to sit at the sides of the grand Victorian hall and make up the choruses’ (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 45), but it is not clear whether these amounted to the twelve singers he mentions, or constituted others as well. Whichever, a large percentage of boys at Colet Court in 1968 would have been involved in this performance. A further performance was given in St Paul’s Cathedral on November 9th, 1968, again with Doggett conducting, William Lloyd Webber on organ, and received a positive review by Ray Connolly in the Evening Standard (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 51; McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 98-99).

But at some point in 1968, Doggett left Colet Court; the exact date is unclear but would have been soon after one of the performances of Joseph, if Gerald McKnight’s assertion that ‘Doggett’s remarkable vision was barely completed when he left the school’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 86) is correct. Accounts differ as to the reasons of veracity thereof of his departure; Michael Walsh writes of his having ‘been let go at Colet Court, with rumors of his homosexual predilections swirling about him’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67), whilst Stephen Citron claims Doggett was ‘let go at Colet Court because he had sexually molested one of the choirboys’, causing his career to go into a tailspin (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5); whereas Mantle just says that Doggett ‘left his job at Colet Court’, though later that ‘he had left his post with the choir of Colet Court, but he had been unable to leave them alone’, leaving little doubt who ‘them’ were (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 91, 130). Tim Rice writes in his biography, looking back at this incident from the vantage point of Doggett’s suicide in 1978, that:

The only previous time in ten years that Andrew and I had come across such rumours concerning Alan, the allegations were proven to be exactly that, as the time and place of the supposed transgression clashed precisely with a recording date at which all three of us were continually present. It has been known for young boys, and more commonly their parents, to manufacture or exaggerate incidents when they know and (understandably) disapprove of a teacher’s inclinations. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 401)

However, Rice, did not discount the possibility that the allegations which would surface ten years later were true, making clear that he was not claiming ‘that Alan was squeaky clean throughout his musical dealings with his singers’ (ibid). His successor in the position was his former assistant at the school, Ian Hunter (ibid), who would go on to present Joseph again various times at the school (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 99-100).

Doggett appears never to have had another permanent teaching position after leaving Colet Court; Michael Walsh and Michael Coveney both mention Doggett’s teaching at the City of London School at the time when Lloyd Webber and Rice wrote their short-lived musical Come Back Richard in November 1969 (from which just one title single was released by RCA that month), which Doggett conducted at the school (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 59; Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 58; see also John Snelson, Andrew Lloyd Webber, with foreword by Geoffrey Block (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), p. 222 n. 9), but his only connection was through being invited to adjudicate the school’s Junior Music Competition in 1969 (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 282, n. 4). Walsh also writes that Doggett ‘had caught on at another London school and then abruptly left to lead a choir called the London Boy Singers [see below]’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67), but without clarifying if he is again referring to the City of London School here. Doggett did however teach from August 26th to September 2nd 1969 at one of the Adult Summer Schools with concurrent Choirboys’ Courses for the Royal School of Church Music; this took place at Dean Close School, Cheltenham; fellow teachers included Geoffrey Barber, Michael English, Allen Ferns, Geoffrey Fletcher, W. J. Goodey, Richard Greening. (The Musical Times, Vol. 110, No. 1516 (June 1969), p. 561).

Doggett’s evangelism for popular music with religious themes was undiminished, however, and he published an article to that effect in 1969 (Doggett, ‘Pop here, my Lord?’, English Church Music 1969, pp. 37-40, cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 278). Feeling a great pride in Joseph, Doggett advertised for ‘recruits’ in spring 1969 for a ‘mammoth school performance’ of the work, to be held in St. Paul’s, but it appears that this never took place (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 284; this includes a reproduction of the advert).

Doggett continued to make recordings with Lloyd Webber and Rice following that of Joseph; dates here are unclear, so that it is also unclear whether what Rice refers to as ‘Alan Doggett’s boy choir’, which he dubbed ‘the Wonderschool’, was the Colet Court choir or the London Boy Singers. Recordings were made of ‘Bike’, a Syd Barrett number which had appeared on the first Pink Floyd album, The Piper at the Gates of Dawn (1967), and also of the Everly Brothers’ ‘Problems’, as well as some songs with the Mixed Bag and David Daltrey, but none of these were ever released by Decca. One which was a single featuring a solo choirboy who worked with Doggett; at present I am unclear as to the title of this song, but the B-side was a version of ‘Any Dream Will Do’, with changed lyrics, recorded in 1969 (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 166).

Around Christmas of 1969, Doggett had heard what would become the theme tune for Jesus Christ Superstar, and suggested to Lloyd Webber and Rice that they might use this for a musical based upon the Daily Mail Air Race; the composers decided instead upon the theme of Christ on the cross (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 109). The recording of the new work (an album which preceded stage performances) was made in 1970. Doggett once again conducted the orchestra and a children’s choir (who are unidentified on the recording), together with singers Murray Head, Ian Gillan, Yvonne Elliman, Victor Brox, Brian Keith, Johnny Gustafson, Barry Dennen and Mike D’Abo, some of whom recorded their contributions after the orchestra and choir had finished in the studio. The part of the priest was played by Paul Raven, then the name of Gary Glitter, who of course was later convicted of multiple child sexual abuse and pornography charges. The orchestra featured strings from Malcolm Henderson’s City of London Ensemble, with Alan O’Duffy as engineer (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 198-199). Doggett also conducted Lloyd Webber’s first film score in 1971, for Stephen Frears’ film Gumshoe (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283).

But Lloyd Webber and Rice noticed that Doggett’s conducting was not really up to professional standards, and he seemed out of his depth with the more hard-rock sections of the Superstar recording, and so he was replaced first by Ian Hunter, then for the 1973 film version by André Previn (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; Mantle, Fanfare, p. 91).

This would not however signify the end of Doggett’s collaborations with Lloyd Webber and Rice; there was a new surge of interest in Joseph at late 1972, for which Doggett was brought back to act as musical director for a production at the Edinburgh Festival, directed by Frank Dunlop, together with some medieval mystery plays. With some changes to the lyrics, the performance of Joseph was nonetheless relatively faithful to the original Doggett production (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 286). This production was then taken to the Roundhouse in London and to the Albery Theatre in the West End, and also televised and broadcast on the ITV network on December 24th, 1972, then again on December 23rd, 1973. The Albery performance was paired with a new Lloyd-Webber and Rice work, Jacob’s Journey, thus yet another premiere for Doggett (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 95-96; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

In 1970, Doggett became Director of the St Barnabas Singers, who met on the first Sunday of each month. An advert for the choir indicated that the term’s programme would begin on October 4, including new setting of canticles written for the choir by Betty Roe. The address given was 23 Addison Road, W14. (The Musical Times, Vol. 111, No. 1532 (October 1970), p. 1050). Then, by December 1971 at the latest, Doggett was working for the London Boy Singers (LBS). This was a group founded first in 1961 in order to supply a concert boys’ choir in England, and through the enthusiasm of Benjamin Britten, who served as President. It was initially known as the Finchley Boys’ Choir, formed from the Finchley Children’s Music Group. At first the LBS was run by a Board of Governors, with Eric Walter White as chairman; during this time they performed the premieres of Britten’s King Herod and the Cock and the Twelve Apostles, both dedicated to the choir, in June 1962 in Aldeburgh. The first artistic director was John Andrewes, followed by Jonathan Steele, who was conductor from the outset. However, Steele, broke with Britten and the Governors in 1966. The choir would continue through into the 1970s, and an archive is maintained by the London Boy Singers Association (see ‘London Boy Singers Association’ for more details).

According to one account written after Doggett’s death by a writer who appeared to know Doggett and his work well, Doggett became director of the LBS as early as 1964 (Colin Ward, ‘The saving grace of worldliness’, New Society, July 9th, 1981, p. 72). This is certainly not the account given by the official pages listed above, nor does it concur with the page of archived concert programme of the Finchley Children’s Music Group, which does not mention Doggett once (but mentions Steele twice). A major concert in March 1970 was conducted by Steele (Ronald Crichton, ‘London Boys Singers. St Anne’s and St. Agnes’, Financial Times, March 23rd, 1970, p. 3).I have found no evidence of an earlier involvement of Doggett’s with the choir, so conclude that his work with them probably post-dated Britten’s involvement with them. In December 1971, he was working together with David Rose, and both of their names were given for audition forms (see The Musical Times, Vol. 112, No. 1546 (December 1971), p. 1226). Tim Rice inaccurately refers to the LBS as having been ‘the choir he [Doggett] had formed since leaving regular school employment’ (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 351-352), but it had a longer history than that. In 1973, Doggett who had at some point earlier become Associate Director, was appointed Director of the LBS in succession to Steele (Musical Opinion, Vol. 97 (1973), p. 428). In this capacity, one commentator argues that he brought the choir to international fame (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5). By 1975, a Paul Terry was writing to the Daily Mirror in gushing terms about the LBS, pointing out that they ‘have sung more than 210 part-songs in their concerts over the past six years – all from memory and in nine languages, including Russian, Hebrew and Welsh!’, their average age was 13½, and they were ‘just ordinary lads from schools all over London who love singing’, who had performed in as different locations as the West Country and Rome (where they had been the previous Easter) (Letter from Paul Terry, Caithness Road, London, ‘Songsters’, Daily Mirror, August 26th, 1975, p. 16).

Amongst the concerts of which there is documentary record of his conducting with the choir are one with Timothy Bond on the organ, at St. Vedast, Foster Lane, EC2, on July 11th, 1974 (The Times, June 6th, 1974, p. 7), one at the Exmouth Pavilion on August 3rd, 1975 (The Musical Times, Vol. 116, No. 1590 (Aug., 1975), p. 732), and one at St. Edmundsbury Cathedral on July 30th 1976 (The Musical Times, Vol. 117, No. 1598 (April 1976), p. 295).

Doggett also conducted a recording of Prokofiev’s Peter and the Wolf, with the City of London Ensemble, and Frankie Howerd as narrator, Polydor Carnival 2928 201 (1-25), which was reviewed in an issue of Gramophone from 1972 (p. 110). This version had been prepared by Rice, and Rice and Lloyd Webber were credited as producers on the recording (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283). This was not the only art music he conducted during these years; he would also conduct the UK premiere of Schoenberg’s Sonata Fragment (1941) in 1974 (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 276, n. 1).

Doggett turned to trying to create a cantata/musical of his own along the lines of those of Lloyd Webber and Rice (perhaps, as Chandler suggests (‘Alan Doggett’, p. 284) as a way of realising his vision of a ‘mammoth school performance’ of Joseph); this would be Jason and the Golden Fleece, for which he wrote the music, and co-wrote the lyrics with the Hampstead poet Rita Ford (1931-1985); it was described as ‘A New Musical for Schools’ (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 285-286). The work received its first concert performance at St Barnabas Church, Addison Road, London W14 (where he worked with the St Barnabas Singers mentioned above) on Wednesday June 27th, 1973, hosted by City of London Productions (Advert in The Musical Times, Vol. 114, No. 1564 (June 1973), p. 589). A choir of 250 children were involved, a combination of the LBS, the Islington Green school choir, and also a selection of ‘largely untrained children’ from St. Barnabas and St Philip’s schools, and St Peter’s school in Hammersmith (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 286). The familial resemblances of this work to Joseph, not least in terms of both works’ use of a narrator, have been commented upon by various people, though also its weaknesses compared to the work of Lloyd Webber and Rice, both by critics at the time and later writers (see Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, pp. 285-287; Chandler is concerned to defend this work against the idea it might simply be a poor man’s Joseph). At the outset it received positive reviews from Hilary Finch and Barbara Denny, reviewing for the South Kensington News and Chelsea Post and Kensington News and Post (cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

The work would receive a further performance in a revised version on March 9th, 1977 at Westminster Central Hall, with large forces drawn from many London schools (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 287). This performance, however, received a markedly downbeat review from Merion Bowen, who wrote that the work ‘was not at all edifying’ and that Doggett’s music displays little of the flair shown by Andrew Lloyd Webber and others in the same vein, and Ford’s lyrics aren’t exactly inspired’ (Merion Bowen, ‘Jason and the Golden Fleece’, The Guardian, March 10th, 1977).

Despite having been replaced for the film version of Superstar, Doggett was involved in part in the conducting duties for Lloyd Webber’s score for the 1974 film of The Odessa File (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 283). Also, at some time in the mid-1970s, whilst Lloyd Webber and Rice were working on Evita, Rice also wrote some lyrics for a children’s album, Barbapapa, which was a spin-off from a Dutch TV series, and included Ed Stewart on the recording; Rice brought in Doggett and the LBS for the sessions (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 325).

When it came to the recording of Evita in 1976 (the first production would not come until two years later, after Doggett’s death), Doggett was credited as ‘Children’s Choirmaster, Musical Coordinator (names of all the main performers can be found here); the main conductor and choir director was Anthony Bowles. Rice would later write that Doggett ‘was gently relegated to directing the London Boy Singers’ (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, pp. 351-352), though he appears to have been quite happy in his allotted role (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 116).

The end came for Doggett in early 1978. As with his leaving Colet Court, accounts differ of the actual events. Michael Walsh writes that ‘When one of the boys [of the LBS] accused Doggett of molestation – apparently the accusation was false – the conductor was arrested and, as a condition of his bail, was forbidden to have any contact with his chorus’ (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67). Stephen Citron, who as mentioned earlier reports the molestation at Colet Court as an established fact, says that on this occasion Doggett was again ‘accused of molestation – this time presumably falsely – he was forbidden to have any contact with his chorus’ (Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5). Michael Coveney writes that Doggett ‘was still teaching and running his boys’ choirs but he was threatened with allegations about his private life and preferred not to risk public disgrace’ and that:

The tragedy is that it later emerged there was nothing on the files that was ever going to make any kind of case against him in court. Lloyd Webber remains convinced that Doggett would never have been guilty of taking advantage of any young person in his charge: ‘His main talent was in helping children to make music. He was convinced that every young person had music in him or her, and that it was never too late to stop learning. (Coveney, The Lloyd Webber Story, p. 112).

All three such writers assume either that Doggett was innocent or that the case against him would not stand up in court; Mantle on the other hand writes about ‘forbidden love’ which ‘took other, sadder forms’ and reports the ‘allegation of indecency’ right after arguing that ‘he [Doggett] had been unable to leave them alone [after leaving his post at Colet Court]’, presumably a reference to a proclivity for boys (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 130-131). McKnight does not even seem to have registered the event, claiming that Doggett died in 1973 (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 99), whereas Rice hedges from committing himself to a view of Doggett’s guilt or innocence in 1978 (unlike in 1968) (see below). Another book on Lloyd Webber by John Snelson (Snelson, Lloyd Webber) only mentions Doggett once in passing in the main text, and briefly in two endnotes, so does not consider his death at all. But in most cases the defence or denial seems beset by doubt on the parts of the authors, suggesting their verdicts may reflect what they wish to have been the case rather than necessarily what did transpire.

Doggett was due to conduct a further performance of Jason and the Golden Fleece at the Royal Albert Hall on February 23rd, with a choir of a thousand singers, entitled ‘The London Boy Singers And a Massed Choir of 1000’ who he had selected and coached, as well as many other children playing recorders and percussion, all from around 34 different schools; the performance was to be on behalf of Help the Aged. A few adult celebrities were also involved, including Ed Stewart, Ian Lavender, and Barney the Clown (‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, 24/2/78; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 287). An article from three years after his death (to which I will return below) mentioned that according to some press reports, police had intended to interview every one of these thousand boys (Ward, ‘The saving grace of worldliness’, p. 72).

What is clear is that after Doggett was charged on February 8th, 1978 in West London and remanded on bail of £1000, hours after which, in a depressed state, he travelled back to his birthplace of Iver, and lay down on a railroad track so as to be run over by a train (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; ‘Sex-case death’, Daily Mirror, February 9th, 1978, p. 3; ‘Sex case man killed’, Daily Mail, February 9th, 1978, p. 9; ‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978). Doggett had sent handwritten suicide notes to a few friends, which were delivered a few days later (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67). One of these was to Rice, who received two envelopes, dated a week apart, upon returning from a trip to Australia, both from Doggett. The first was a plea for an opportunity to earn some royalties from work he continued to do with his boys’ choirs on Joseph; the second was the suicide note. Rice quotes part of it in his autobiography:

We all have to sail our own ship through life and this ship has capsized. No one could have helped, it was my destiny. Pray for me, my parents, family and friends. The way I have chosen, the way of the Greeks, though hard, is best. I am sorry I have not completely lived up to it. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 400).

Rice, writing about the ‘Allegations of impropriety with young boys’ which ‘had apparently surfaced (not for the first time)’, whereupon ‘Alan had been arrested and charged’, leading to his suicide (ibid), wrote the following in his autobiography:

I say ‘not for the first time’ but I cannot believe that Alan was truly a danger, or even a minor menace, to the many boys he had worked with over the years. The only previous time in ten years that Andrew and I had come across such rumours concerning Alan, the allegations were proven to be exactly that, as the time and place of the supposed transgression clashed precisely with a recording date at which all three of us were continually present. It has been known for young boys, and more commonly their parents, to manufacture or exaggerate incidents when they know and (understandably) disapprove of a teacher’s inclinations. I am certainly not saying that this was the case with the circumstances that led to Alan’s awful end, or that Alan was squeaky clean throughout his musical dealings with his singers. However I suspect that there was a lot less to the cause of his tragedy than met the eye – just enough to render him incapable of facing the humiliation and shame that he knew he had brought upon himself. It was hard for me to believe that Alan, working with boys so closely for so many years, could have got away with any such behaviour for so long without being caught and hard to speak about him at his funeral, which I readily agreed to do. He played a crucial part in Andrew’s and my success, was an excellent choirmaster, and was never less than a highly amusing and generous companion. (Rice, Oh, What a Circus, p. 401)

Lloyd Webber and Rice themselves published a ‘Tribute’ in the Evening Standard a week after Doggett’s death (February 15th, 1978, p. 25), saying that ‘[w]e ourselves owe him a great deal’ (cited in Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 277).

In the next issue of Magpie, the following text appeared:

Dear Sir,

‘Letters’ is a most acceptable way for members to express their opinions. Usually I don’t, but this time I am so shocked and distressed as a paedophile, and lover of music, that I will sound off.

On February 9th the Director of the ‘London Boys Singers’ was a troubled man. He attended the Magistrate’s Court, accused of ‘Indecency’ with a 10 year old boy.

I know none of the facts of his story, but can well imagine the innocence with which this act of love and affection had taken place.

No doubt Mr. Doggett, considering his social position, found his contact with the law enforcement people to be unacceptable to him. He was bailed, pending trial. He went to a pub and talked a while, wrote some letters to friends and relatives and then threw himself under a train.

If this man chose death as a means of protecting his beliefs towards Paedophilia, I wonder how many of those, who consider the bloody futile laws of this land to be correct and proper, would be willing to support their theories with their life?

It is of the utmost importance that Paedophiles be permitted to express themselves without oppression. It is the ONLY way to be sure that tragedies of this nature will be averted in the future.

My most sincere condolences to the members of the London Boy Singers.

Your loss is total.

Paul Andrews. (Letters, Magpie, Issue No. 10 (no date), p. 4)

Andrews was a treasurer of the Paedophile Information Exchange, at least in September 1978, when his house was raided, together with those of chairman Tom O’Carroll, secretary David Grove, and a Mr Ralph Alden (Gerard Kemp, ‘Child sex leaders raided’, Sunday Express, June 18th, 1978); Andrews had retired from this position by November 1979. He appeared in court with O’Carroll and Grove on July 26th, 1979 at Bow Street Magistrate’s Court on a charge of ‘Conspiracy to Corrupt Public Morals’ (at least as reported in Pan: A Magazine of Boy Love, Vol. 1, No. 3 (November 1979), p. 6). In 2007, a Paul Andrews, 41, was jailed indefinitely after pleading guilty at Preston Crown Court to four charges of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, one of attempted sexual activity with a child and one of causing a child to watch sexual activity. The boys involved were aged 11 and 13, and the offences had taken place in Andrews’ flat in Meetings View, Barrow. He had previously received convictions in 1997 for offences including indecent assault and received a three year probationary sentence, but then was jailed for four months after breaching his court order (J. Connor, ‘Pervert Locked Up Indefinitely’, North West Evening Mail, November 5th, 2007). However, it is not clear if this is definitely the same Paul Andrews (this latter would have been just 23 at the time of the Magpie piece).

It is not clear from the letter whether Andrews knew Doggett personally, but the tone of the letter suggests some familiarity with the case.

The February 23rd performance of Jason and the Golden Fleece at the Royal Albert Hall became a memorial concert for Doggett. Michael Stuckey, who had worked alongside Doggett for the 1972 productions of Joseph, took over the conducting (Walsh, Lloyd Webber, p. 67; Citron, Sondheim and Lloyd Webber, p. 151 n. 5; ‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978; Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285). The work would also receive a further performance in 1979 at the Connaught Theatre, Worthing, with an adult cast of around 25, and with Hugh Janes, who would later obtain the rights to the work, as narrator (Chandler, ‘Alan Doggett’, p. 285).

Another article appeared in Magpie in the following issue, this time from an anonymous contributor:

A letter in Magpie 10 reported and commented on the recent suicide of Alan Doggett three weeks before he was to conduct the London Boys Choir, together with massed choirs of other children at the Albert Hall. On the night of that concert the programme contained an insert describing Alan Doggett’s years of dedicated service and paying tribute to his friendliness, integrity and loyalty.

Shortly after this date a requiem mass was said for him at the Holy Cross Priory in Leicester by the Reverend Father Michael Ingram.

On Saturday 20th May a memorial service will be held to commemorate Alan’s life and work. It will start at 3 p.m. and will be held at St. Barnabas Church, Addison Road, London, W14, taking the form of a choral evensong, performed by the London Boys Choir.

These religious functions, one Roman, the other Anglican must be seen not only as ceremonies of intercession and remembrance, but also as containing an element of protest. It would seem to be true that in today’s society religious organisations provide almost the only vehicle whereby such a protest can be made. (‘Alan Doggett – Memorial Service’, Magpie, Issue No. 11, May 1978).

Father Michael Ingram, a Dominican priest, was himself a contributor to multiple issues of Magpie (see my other blogs for some examples of this), writing amongst other things about his supposed counselling of young boys over their sexual hang-ups and difficulties with their parents. He was found guilty in August 2000 of sexual offences, including one serious sexual offence, one offence of gross indecency, and four of indecent assault, against six boys committed between 1971 and 1978 (‘Former priest guilty of sex abuse’, The Tablet, August 19th, 2000, p. 26). A series of reports from the trial in the Leicester Mercury (from July 31st to August 15th, 2000, covering the course of the trial) detailed the awful events and traumatic experiences of Ingram’s victims as revealed in court, and how Ingram preyed upon those from under-privileged families and broken homes, some of them referred to him by social services. Ingram would also encourage boys to compete for his attentions and affection, especially on holiday trips. A letter to The Tablet in 2012 (Ingram had died in 2000) spoke of Ingram’s involvement with PIE, and also contribution to the book The Betrayal of Youth; Radical perspectives on childhood sexuality, intergenerational sex, and the social oppression of children and young people, edited Warren Middleton (London: CL Publications, 1986) (Middleton was a PIE Executive Committee member and former editor of Understanding Paedophilia – see my blog post here for samples from this publication), which featured many essays from individuals connected to PIE (and by feminist writer Beatrice Faust and gay rights campaigner Peter Tatchell – see here for a list of contents and quotes). Nurse was surprised that despite the openness with which Ingram expressed his views on the desirability of sexual relationships between adults and children, he was still ‘remained in active ministry and was permitted to work with vulnerable and disadvantaged children’ (Richard Scorer, ‘Turning a blind eye’, The Tablet, November 10th, 2012, pp. 18-19).

Over three years after Doggett’s death, an article in New Society looking back at his plight also bears consideration, and suggests the author knew Doggett and more about the situation than he is revealing. This author was Colin Ward (1924-2010), a writer for anarchist publications, noted for an important book The Child in the City (London: The Architectural Place, 1977) (for more details on Ward, see Ken Worpole, ‘Colin Ward obituary’, The Guardian, February 22nd, 2010). Ward’s article is worth quoting from in detail, and is quite shocking by contemporary standards:

Chaps in pubs and clubs nod sagely at the mention of schoolmasters, scoutmaster and choirmasters. We all know what motivates them. It’s a bit embarrassing, to say the least, for all those people in these occupations whose devoted service is untinged by sexual attraction, but the stereotype exists and is quite often true.

Every now and then someone breaks ranks and points out (as the therapist Dr Richard Hauser did, to the accompaniment of a chorus of parliamentary questions) that if there were some machine for screening out those with a sexual attraction towards children, the caring professions would lose their most valuable people).

But publicly we brush aside ordinary wordly truths taken for granted by the chaps in pubs and clubs, or, worse, treat them as sudden terrible revelations. The recent moral crusade against paedophiles in the United States has led to all sorts of worthy people abandoning their voluntary activities in the boy scouts or in the Big Brother organisation (of adult males befriending boys from fatherless families) for fear of being identified with them.

It is interesting to see that the homosexual lobby there is sufficiently self-assured to fight back and to defend in the courts the right of its own paedophile minority to be scout leaders or Big Brothers, just as it is encouraging to read that the city authorities in Amsterdam have allowed a known paedophile – with a prison sentence behind him – to adopt a troublesome 13 year old boy from a children’s home. To harness people’s wayward and personal predilections to a socially desirable end is a mark, not of irresponsibility, but of civilisation. (Paeophilia, it is worth repeating, means the attraction of men towards boys. It’s pederasty when it turns into sexual activity.)

[……..]If Lewis Carroll had been born 100 years later, he, with his delight in taking nude photographs of his little girl friends, would find himself in the dock at the Old Bailey, charged under the Protection of Children Act, 1978.

Consider the cases of two choirmasters. Years ago, a celebrated college director of music (now dead) appeared before a private university court following charges that he had molested a choirboy. He was reprimanded and went back to his honoured place at High Table and to his work with the choir he had made world-famous. Contrast his experience with that of Alan Doggett. If you know Doggett’s name it is because you saw it on the record sleeve of Evita, where he is described as musical coordinator, though he did not live to see the stage production. He was found dead on a railway line three years ago.

On the very day that the coroner pronounced a verdict of suicide, he was to have conducted at the Albert Hall, a charity performance of his “pop extravaganza,” Jason and the Golden Fleece, with a thousand schoolboy singers and instrumentalists. He was a music teacher who had commissioned from Andrew Lloyd Webber and Tim Rice, then in their teens, Joseph and the Amazing Technicolor Dreamcoat as a school opera. Later he was their musical director for Jesus Christ, Superstar. In 1964 [probably an erroneous date] he had become the director of the London Boy Singers, an ensemble founded at the instigation of Benjamin Britten in 1961. Everyone in the musical world paid tribute to his immense energy and his inspired teaching.

The day after his death, friends received through the post a note from him which said, “We all have to sail our own ship through life, and this ship has now capsized. No one could have helped. It was my destiny.” On the day of his death, he had been committed for trial on a charge of committing an act of indecency with a minor. According to the press, the police had intended to interview each of the thousand boys in the Albert Hall production.

I know young men who were members of that choir and who remember Alan Doggett with immense gratitude and respect. I have myself a family of young musicians, who, if any unexpected extra-musical experiences came their way, were sensible enough to handle them in their own way and keep quiet about them.

What is absolutely appalling is the degree of retribution exacted by the community for minor indiscretions which have been going on, as we all know, since the days of the ancient Greeks. In common, I imagine, with many readers of this journal (though only Tailgunner Parkinson, who is always ready to stick his neck out, spoke up for him), I reacted with horror and unbelief at the two-year sentence passed on Tom O’Carroll, after a re-trial.

He was found guilty, you will recall, under one of those obsolete statues which have to be dug up on these occasions, of “corrupting public morals” by publishing the information bulletin of the Paedophile Information Exchange. There was no evidence that he had committed any offence against any child. (The only charge of this nature against him was withdrawn last month and he was awarded costs).

[….More on O’Carroll and Paedophilia: the radical case…. – this awful publication can be found complete online here]

Another court case, involving incest, followed by the murder of a father by his daughter, which was reported on the same day as the result of the PIE trial, presents the other side of the argument. Statistically, the commonest known form of child-adult sexual activity is father-daughter incest. The enormous publicity given to cases of the sexual murder of children shouldn’t blind us to the fact that such instances are no more typical of the paedophiliac scene than rape-and-murder is characteristic of ordinary sex.

Of the millions of grams of sexual fluids ejaculated every night, most are expended in socially harmless ways, and, in spite of Roman Catholic teaching, not many of them are involved in the reproduction of our race: something for which we should all be thankful. But are we really so worried if some boy in the summer camp is masturbating with the youth club leader, instead of by himself? Don’t we all know that the investigation of the offence is ten times as traumatic as the actual experience itself?

[….More on O’Carroll….]

What really touched me about his [O’Carroll’s] book was the way he quoted his glowing testimonials as a teacher. I am sure that he is a marvellous teacher and that this is a by-product of his sexual inclinations. But this has not saved him, or hundreds of other men like him, from the horrors of a jail sentence on this kind of charge. The Department of Education has a blacklist, which we aren’t entitled to see, on which his name must be underlined.

Yet if we delve into personal memories, we find that innumerable experiences with people like him, far from involving any kind of violence or painful physical penetration, have simply been an aspect of growing up. I can remember the fumbling fondlings of a PE teacher as flattering, rather than terrifying. My wife remembers the attentions of a beloved teacher as yet another initiation into the joys of sex.

Here, as in so many other aspects of social life, there is a fantastic gap between what we all know to be true and our accepted public attitudes. Something we can learn from those old gents in pubs and clubs is the saving grace of worldliness.

This is common of the type of language, rhetoric and ideological assumptions which permeate pro-paedophile discourse. It portrays paedophilia as natural amongst those in the teaching or caring professions, makes any other view out as being akin to a witch-hunt, advocates ‘keeping quiet’ as the only ‘sensible’ response on the part of children, attempts to legitimise the practice by reference to historical figures (and the ancient Greeks), appropriates gay liberation towards its own ends, evokes the cultured (in this case musical) aspects of paedophiles, justifies masturbation of minors, claims that to investigate such offences is worse than the offences themselves, and betrays a type of Stockholm syndrome when speaking of one’s own experiences of sexual abuse. And it is most telling that the only two names who Ward discusses in detail are Doggett and O’Carroll.

Various accounts of Doggett’s character help to complete the picture. Jonathan Mantle shows the awkwardness of ‘the prematurely balding Doggett with his thick black spectacles and his vulnerability to mockery’ which contrasted strongly with the ‘mop-haired, feminine looking youth whose facial hair seemed to be concentrated in a pair of thick, black eyebrows which rose and fell incessantly’ of Lloyd Webber (Mantle, Fanfare, p. 42). Mantle also writes:

Doggett was a split personality: outwardly a charming, witty man, a competent keyboard player and arranger and a highly successful architect of the Colet Court choir, but inwardly a nervy, intense homosexual of unhappy inclinations which would eventually destroy him. He had taken a shine to Andrew at an early age and became his self-appointed musical minder, making sure the young composer’s phenomenal aptitude for tunes was translated into music whose time signature always worked and bars added up correctly. (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 30-31)

He further suggests that Ian Hunter, whilst appreciating deeply what Doggett was able to do for the Colet Court choir, had ‘few illusions about the more volatile aspects of his personality’ (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 42-43); McKnight quotes Hunter as saying that Doggett ‘was not very brilliant musically’, but had a great ‘ability to communicate with kids’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, p. 86).

Gerald McKnight refers to Doggett as ‘a sad, pathetically mixed-up man in private life’, though ‘his passion for music endeared him to Dr and Mrs Lloyd Webber’, who the composers regularly ragged, using instructions such as ‘With un-Doggett-like expression!’ and ‘Doggett Mobbed!’ (McKnight, Lloyd Webber, pp. 85, 99).

Mantle points out however how central a part of Lloyd Webber’s social circle was Doggett (together with David Crewe-Read, Gray Watson, Bridget (Biddy) Hayward and Jamie Muir), whilst implying that Doggett’s place in this circle depended upon ‘past glories’; in his later work with Lloyd Webber, according to Mantle, he came to ‘ look more and more like a man who had been left behind’ (Mantle, Fanfare, pp. 117-118, 131).

The second Magpie article, with its reference to the two religious services ‘containing an element of protest’ and how ‘religious organisations provide almost the only vehicle whereby such a protest can be made’, is ominous, and suggests a deeper knowledge of Doggett and his activities. The inquest found that Doggett had only written two letters, which he had posted from Paddington Station on the evening he died – one to his sitter and the other to a clergyman (‘Concert’s lost conductor’, The Guardian, February 24th, 1978; this article dates the inquest as taking place three weeks previously, but this is impossible because of the date of Doggett’s death) (there was no mention of the letter to Rice). Who was the clergyman in question?

Otherwise, the article by Colin Ward, the fact of their having been two different pieces on Doggett in Magpie, and the fact that in all of these cases the language is quite typical of paedophile parlance (especially in PIE publications), combined with the varying accounts of Doggett’s having been caught or at least accused of molestation in both 1968 and 1978, certainly indicate that more information is needed to establish the truth. It is possible that these writers simply wish to appropriate Doggett for their own ideological purposes, without implying that he had any direct connection with their activities, and possible that the accusations against Doggett were indeed unfounded – I would be wholly opposed to ruling out this option on principle. However, one must also consider the fact that Doggett was indeed a fully paid-up member of PIE. As many members of PIE have been implicated in international child abuse and pornography networks, as well as rings of abusers, the implications are extremely disturbing for one who worked with such a range of children. It is time to find out the truth about this.

Doggett’s story is tragic, and he undoubtedly needed help and support such as might have avoided involvement with the dark world of PIE instead. But the potential tragedy for many who worked with him, and how this all might supply further important information about the workings of PIE and its involvement with abuse networks, remains the important question today. At the time of David Chandler’s article in 2012, Ian Hunter was certainly still alive; others interviewed included Roger Ford (husband of the late Rita), and Julian Lloyd Webber. There were literally thousands of boys who worked with Doggett (who would be in their 50s and 60s at the time of writing), so many who could shed further light onto what exactly went on, not to mention the many other musicians who worked with him, and others mentioned in this article. I appeal to those who knew Doggett to help to establish the truth about his activities (which may be wholly or mostly innocent) once and for all.

Anyone wishing to speak under conditions of complete confidentiality is welcome to e-mail me at ian@ianpace.com , and I can give advice regarding what to do with any information.


PIE – documentary evidence 3 – from Magpie 9-17 (trigger warning – contains disturbing material)

[NOTE OF WARNING: In absolutely no sense whatsoever does the printing of the below material constitute any type of endorsement; in fact the very reverse]

[ADDENDUM: The Mail have located the NCCL ad in question and scanned and reproduced it here. I have reproduced it below]

Continuing from my last post, I reproduce here the most significant material from the PIE publication Magpie, Issues 9-17, generally without comment. I must warn readers that there is a good deal of extremely troubling and disturbing material reproduced here (more so than in my last blog post) so please be wary before reading further. Researching this journal is one of the most unpleasant activities I have ever undergone; I am presenting the material here so that no-one can be in any doubt about the nature of PIE, and disturbing connections about many high-level individual’s connections to the organisation will be seen to be as serious as they truly are.


Issue No. 9. No date given

‘..we have been featured not only in the Observer and Sunday Times reviews of the year, but also in the latter’s Christmas quiz.’
Talking about how ‘Our achievements during 1977 have been considerable’
Suggests both society and them have been forced to re-examine their attitudes.
‘Take the matter of child pornography. The whole issue sprang into prominence at the same time as we were being press-exposed. In at least one newspaper we were on the same page as an investigation into child-porn and so we could have been associated with it, or with its purveyors. Many leading figures have been called upon to take a stand on this subject, and unless we make our own position clearer we will continue to be connected, by default. Yet to formulate an acceptable policy on this matter is far from easy. Personally, I find most porn offensive, but I recognise that for many of our members it is the only way to release their pent-up emotions with relative safety. To take a stand, to formulate a policy devoid of hypocrisy is fraught with problems.’ (La Gazza Ladra, p. 2)

Ken Palmer, ‘Convenor’s Spot: For the Love of Children’, p. 3 (Palmer is Convenor of Winchester CHE). This article cites the work of Brongersma.
‘The greatest crime in the criminal calendar should be cruelty, either physical or mental. Frequently the law in its present state is most cruel in its effects ironically to the very persons it is designed to protect. Where love is uppermost in every human relationship there can be little real evil and the weight of such love should receive full consideration where adult sexual relations with children are known.’

‘Read All About It’, p. 3
Community Care 9/11/77 (letter from Tom O’Carroll; 2 hostile reactions); 16/11/77 (letter); new Society 20/10/77 (letter from Keith Hose); New Statesman 16/9/77 (Dr Maurice Yaffe, ‘Paedophilia – the forbidden subject’; Private Eye 16/9/77 (Auberon Waugh’s Diary); The Observer 28/8/77 (Dutch MP Backs child sex); 4/9/77 (Britain ‘intolerant’ on child sex – interview with Brongersma); Sunday Times 4/9/77 (Priest to reveal startling facts about paedophilia – ‘an unbiased account of Dr. Ingram’s paper to the Swansea Conference); Socialist Challenge 7/9/77 (PIE and the Press); 15/9/77 (Sexuality and PIE – letter from David Grove), 29/9/77 (Civil rights); peace News 7/10/77 (Where Fascism and Sexism met Beyond Law reform); Socialist Worker 29/9/77 (The Press and Free speech); 8/10/77 (letters, pro-PIE); Zero Oct-Nov issue No. 3 (The Case for PIE); Gay News Issue 128 (Pie meeting that NF tried to silence. Doctor protests – on Brongersma letter to Swansea; ‘Facing the Front’ – GN editorial; letters, Issue 129 (letters) 130 (letters) 131 (‘Forbidden Speech’ – ‘an excellent critique of Dr. Brongersma’s speech, published in last issue of Childhood rights, by Dr. Richard Norton); Libertarian Education no. 23 winter 77 (Press Reaction); Police Review 30/9/77 (Personally Speaking – ‘a long, fair and objective article by C.H. Rolfe’) (p. 3)

Tom O’Carroll, ‘Tom Tom’, pp. 4-6
‘We who believe there is nothing wrong with children being involved in sexual acts have no reason to share this position [that porn ‘depraves and corrupts’]. What we must concern ourselves with is that children only take part in sexual activities that they really desire – – whether the act is on celluloid or not is a very secondary consideration.’
[…]
‘Some years ago, after seeing my first half dozen boy films at a single sitting, what struck me most forcefully, apart from an uncontrollable urge to wet my pants, was that the degree of involvement and enthusiasm of the young participants varied immensely. Whereas some appeared to be genuinely rampant and “hungry for action”, others were limp, listless and indifferent.
This had nothing to do with age. I remember a boy of only 10 or so in a happy state of total commitment to his work, right through to its completion – – the quiver of climax was unmistakable – – while the 15-year-old who was sucking him looked as thought he’d rather be smoking a cigarette, which for much of the film he was. On the other hand I’ve seen a randy 12-year-old girl excitedly wanking her little five-year-old brother who, although effortlessly and endlessly stiff as a tiny spring-mounted poker, wore the detached, meditative air of one whose thoughts were precociously turned towards Zen Buddhism.’ (pp. 5-6)
[…]

‘Constantine [Larry Constantine, who gave a paper at the Love and Attraction conference in Swansea] talks about the benefits of a legal industry, open to inspection. I would go further and suggest that part of the reason for the exploitation of children in porn is not only the illegality but also the profitability, albeit the latter is to some extent a function of the former. As well as monitoring the industry, why not take the profit incentive out of it? Why not have government sponsored porn by way of competition? Via the Arts Council, it would be possible to create bursaries for artists working in the field of erotic photo and cinema featuring children, thus encouraging the emergence of really first rate, non-commercial porn.’ (pp. 5-6)

Keith Spence, ‘Chicken à l’Americaine’, pp. 6-7
Suggests Bruce Altman’s book ‘Raising Chickens – – A Beginner’s Guide’, could be an instruction manual for paedophiles.

Keith Hose, ‘Proud to be an Animal’, pp. 8-9
[…..]
‘They [antagonists in Gay News] would argue that we have women members because paedophilia is a male phenomenon caused by looking at relationships in a sexist way; in terms of dominance and submission. A violent reaction from women against this sexism is only natural they argue, women are all too aware of how they suffer from this attitude in men and do not want children to suffer in the same way. In fact desocialising children away from the traditional roles of male and female is the only hope; so leave the children alone for us to change them, they conclude.

My arguments however, are the other side of the same coin. I too am against sexism, but do not believe that paedophilia is caused by looking at relationships in a sexist way. Not all paedophile relationships are about dominance and submission, and adults will still be attracted to children, and children to adults, when and if we do reach a world free of sexism and other forms of exploitation.’ (p. 8)
[…..]
‘Our antagonist’s supposition that the women there were reacting against male sexual domination, may have some element of truth in it if we remember that to a lot of people sex only means coitus, sexual relationships involve one partner dominating the other, and children are lesser people than adults. With these beliefs sex with children means adults forcibly buggering or raping them. Add to that the deliberate misinterpretation of PIE’s Evidence to the Criminal Law revision Committee and the concentration on infants by the media, despite the fact that few of PIE’s members are sexually attracted to babies, and you can quite sympathise with their emotional, if mistaken, reactions.
Strangely, I found myself agreeing with a point made in Auberon Waugh’s article about paedophilia which was printed in a recent issue of the ‘Spectator’ (“Suffer the little children” – 1st October 1977), that there is a class difference in the way people react to paedophilia. While I may not agree with Auberon Waugh’s hypothesis as to the cause of the difference in class attitude, it is undeniable that it exists. Most of the demonstrators outside PIE’s first public meeting were working class, and coming from a working class background, I myself was aware, even at fifteen, that if I did not obtain a higher education I would be trapped into working in a ‘factory floor’ environment; my sexuality and personality would have to conform. I felt a middle class environment would give me more freedom.’ (p. 9) (etc)

‘la France.. Some general Impressions on France for Boy Lovers’, p. 10 (by Member 173)
This suggests that France is, ‘an unrewarding place for child-lovers is reasonable, up to a point’.
Mentions a ‘well known paederast, Gabriel Matzneff’, essay ‘The Under Sixteens’
Stricter families.
No established group like PIE in France.
But mentions FRED – Front Revolutionnaire pour une Enfance Differente’
And that Libération is ‘a paper very tolerant to paedophiles’
French boy: ‘I suspect that he is more of an adult than his English counterpart, less interested in sport and more concerned with being clever and a man of the world, and if he doesn’t share the stunning good looks of the Italian or Britisher, I challenge anybody to doubt his sophistication and seriousness compared to his counterpart across the water.’

Nathaniel Jacobs, ‘A Professional Learns to Listen’, p. 11
Talking about experiences as a professional counsellor with a Mr J. in prison, ‘Even though my acceptance of boy-love is limited, I sense the pain and rejection that fills the being of Mr. J. when he cannot, with sanctioned approval, practice the physical lovemaking he desires. Furthermore, just because I cannot accept the sexual ingredient does not imply that I heap condemnation upon the practice; nor do I consider Mr. J. a recalcitrant and sinner and cast him aside as being despicable and abased.
Quite the contrary, Mr. J’s love for children is transcendent the physical. He loves with the love of spiritual dimension. If I could but tap the mainstream of his compassion then my heart would also respond with a thunderous indignancy at a world which systematically destroys her children and protects them from those, such as Mr. J. who would give to them a love unconditional and free.’
[….]

Brongersma, ‘Paedophilia: the Act’, pp. 12-13 – with picture of young boy.

Another crossword, p. 15

Cartoon, reproduced from Spectator, boy saying to his mother, ‘Mummy, when I grow up can I be a paedophile?’, p. 15.

Quotes
‘Often a beautiful boy with scarlet lips
Asks me laughingly: what is your religion?
I answer him; in your love I find my faith,
My paradise, my God, and my eternity’
(Ibrahim Ibn Sahl. 12th century) (p. 15)

Back page (p. 16), lists of ‘Europie’, 12 in France, 3 in Italy, 1 in Netherlands, 3 in West Germany, 2 in Norway.

Issue No. 10. No date given.

Picture of young girl on front, with title ‘HAPPINESS! (before the arrest)’

La Gazza Ladra, p. 2 – on sacking of Tom O’Carroll from OU job.

‘Dear Sir,

‘Letters’ is a most acceptable way for members to express their opinions. Usually I don’t, but this time I am so shocked and distressed as a paedophile, and lover of music, that I will sound off.

On February 9th the Director of the ‘London Boys Singers’ was a troubled man. He attended the Magistrate’s Court, accused of ‘Indecency’ with a 10 year old boy.

I know none of the facts of his story, but can well imagine the innocence with which this act of love and affection had taken place.

No doubt Mr. Doggett, considering his social position, found his contact with the law enforcement people to be unacceptable to him. He was bailed, pending trial. He went to a pub and talked a while, wrote some letters to friends and relatives and then threw himself under a train.

If this man chose death as a means of protecting his beliefs towards Paedophilia, I wonder how many of those, who consider the bloody futile laws of this land to be correct and proper, would be willing to support their theories with their life?

It is of the utmost importance that Paedophiles be permitted to express themselves without oppression. It is the ONLY way to be sure that tragedies of this nature will be averted in the future.

My most sincere condolences to the members of the London Boy Singers.

Your loss is total.

Paul Andrews. [Treasurer of PIE]’ (p. 4)
[I will post more about Doggett in a later blog post]

Warren Middleton, ‘As I see it…A Question of Strategy’, pp. 4-5.
Angry that Tony Smythe, director of National Association for Mental Health (MIND) said he didn’t think PIE was the best group to advance children’s sexual rights.

Brongersma, ‘Paedophilia: the Person’, pp. 6-7
[……..]
‘The ideal of many paedophiles is a lasting intimate relation with one and the same child. The prejudices of society render this very difficult or even dangerous, save in those cases where the parents agree.’ (p. 7)
[…]
‘Other paedophiles may be so afraid of the pain that lasting relations inevitably inflict on the adult partner, or are in the impossibility under social pressure to establish such a relation, that they stay promiscuous and have sex with an often incredibly large number of children.’ (p. 7)
[….]
‘Nichols in the U.S.A. (Ethics, Goals and Responsibilities to be Encouraged in the Man-Boy Relationship, 1971), Himmelein in Germany, Etz in Austria and others proposed a kind of ethical code for boy-love, emphasizing the duty to respect the boy’s personality, not only in the sexual relations but in every way, to help him to grow up, to educate him, to be firm with him when necessary, not to spoil him, to prepare his way to a responsible heterosexual life, to comradeship, to society as a whole.’ (p. 7)

‘Photos Needed’, p. 7
‘If you have good, original non-nude photos of children that you would allow us to publish in MAGPIE, please send them along. We particularly need pictures for the front page, but photos of any size can be used. We’ll return them. Thanks.

‘J Z Eglington’, p. 11
Mentions on subway in NYC, August 1976, ad for Bronx Zoo, a pic of ‘a frecklefaced boy of 11 or 12’
And ads for Allan’s Frankfurters, which have been called ‘Bun Busters’.

Shops on 7th Avenue South selling picture postcard depicting nude boys, photographs by “Attilla” and others for Atlantis Studios, Box 56, Village Station, NYC 10014. Not pornographic. Models 11-15 in age.

And on ‘Eatable Undies’.

Loving account of a showing in the University of Miami Film Society of Death in Venice.

POST home delivery ad campaign posters, April-May 1977 in Denver ‘have been showing a handsome blond newsboy of 12 or 13, quoted as saying “I deliver a LOT more than the News’

And ads on automobiles in Cal, Tennessee and Kentucky, ‘Have You Hugged Your Kid Today?’

p. 12 (back page), crossword. Call for writings.

Says that cover picture ‘is of a 12 year old boy full of joy and happiness despite being form a home where is own mother didn’t know his correct age, and where his father is a thief and a drunkard. This picture of inner peace was made just weeks before the police brutally interrogated him, jailed his benefactor and returned him to the “custody of his parents” with a statement that he “requires psychiatric counselling”.’

Issue No. 11. May 1978

This issue can be read complete online here.

Boy of about 10-11 leaning against a pole on front.

‘Alan Doggett – Memorial Service’
A letter in Magpie 10 reported and commented on the recent suicide of Alan Doggett three weeks before he was to conduct the London Boys Choir, together with massed choirs of other children at the Albert Hall. On the night of that concert the programme contained an insert describing Alan Doggett’s years of dedicated service and paying tribute to his friendliness, integrity and loyalty.
Shortly after this date a requiem mass was said for him at the Holy Cross Priory in Leicester by the Reverend Father Michael Ingram.
On Saturday 20th May a memorial service will be held to commemorate Alan’s life and work. It will start at 3 p.m. and will be held at St. Barnabas Church, Addison Road, London, W14, taking the form of a choral evensong, performed by the London Boys Choir.
These religious functions, one Roman, the other Anglican must be seen not only as ceremonies of intercession and remembrance, but also as containing an element of protest. It would seem to be true that in today’s society religious organisations provide almost the only vehicle whereby such a protest can be made.’ (p. 2)

We have for sale a limited number of copies of a 99 page booklet by Den Nichols, called “Towards a Better Perspective For Boy-Lovers”. Published in 1976 in the United States in its preface to ‘serious minded adult males who feel an existential attraction to young boys”. Copies are £1 each, including post & packaging; orders to PIE. (‘Special Offer’, p. 2)

The article ‘NCCL Supports PIE’s Right’s was reproduced on my earlier blog post here.

‘Dear Sir,
The figures show that “enlightened” Britain has a mania for sending people to prison. Our prison population per head is vastly larger than any other European country. According to one BBC expert’s estimate (Nov. 16th) there are about eight thousand children incarcerated in England. Yet Mr. William Whitelaw calls for more imprisonments, more severe sentences and “short sharp shocks”. At the same time 80% of boys and 35 to 40% of girls commit another offence within two years of release. In other words the custodial treatment of the young offender is completely ineffective if its aim is to change his antisocial desires and acts. It is of course more succes- sful if regarded in the light of a punish- ment. It also protects society for the period of custody.
Many people involved with the problem are aware of this inadequacy and of the destructive effect of the court – and custody experience. Some express bafflement. It is not surprising since the only solution in most cases is one that society finds it almost impossible to pro- vide and that is love. Adults mostly seem to love only their own children, the only arrangement regarded as normal. Many are unable to love and cherish any children even their own. There are no wellsprings of affection available to rescue these children and it is not surprising that statistics show the only hope for the recidivist is a successful marriage. Non-conforming and bitter children are even more likely to be starved of affection and, most damaging, to be treated with no consideration for their dignity. The evidence is all around us that violence is more acceptable to society than love. Court sentences show that. People have always tried to prevent love by others but have made sure if they were powerful enough, that society condoned or at least tolerated their own foibles. Thus the Victorian ‘gentleman’ could have the working class girl-with dire consequences to her but none to him if they were found out, and every form of pro- stitution was available to him. Like the present day anti-porn lobby he was very concerned with the morality of others.
John Le Carre with his penetrating view of life writes in the ‘Observer’ that the affection-starved youngsters at his prep school went from bed to bed like sticky frogs looking for a pond. “There at last we embraced like the infants we were not allowed to be”. ‘ For punishment – love of course was a punishable offence – we had the . . . choice of several small riding whips”.
Science should be leading us to ask as a matter of course – “But what does the evidence show us?”. It is disheartening to find so distinguished a leader of society as Mr. Whitelaw favouring instead an emotive prejudice, either through a lack of understanding or political expediency. We need a more enlightened and scientific approach to the problem of law and order and the soul destroying effect of our overcrowded prisons.
Yours sincerely,
313.’ (p. 3)

‘Dear Editor,
I have been watching the progress of Magpie with interest since its inception last year, and I must say that it improves greatly with each issue, not only in quality of print etc., but also what started out as broadsheets, appealing for ideas and opinions, has developed into an intelligent, thought provoking publication. I read with interest Tom’s article on child-porn (issue no. 9) and thought you and other members may be interested to hear one or two comments.
Firstly, I think the inclusion of erotic pictures in Magpie would be a contradiction of P.I.E.’s objectives and would fuel the fires of our principal enemys namely the National Front and the Mrs. Whitehouse’s of this world.
Personally, like many other members. I suspect, I find magazines such as Male International, Kim, Boys Express etc., quite acceptable and I am not in the least offended by their contents. However. I feel that Magpie, for all its limitations, must he our vehicle for ideas, our means of communication, but more so, our shop-window to the world, our best advertisement for ourselves.
By producing an “educational” rather than “sensational” magazine, paedophiles will, I believe, gradually begin to come across as a caring rather than corrupting breed.
Only by striving to achieve a cloak of respectability will we be able to gain a place in society, we will never reach our goal by adopting a “don’t give a damn what you think of us” attitude. This, I think is where the Gay Liberation Front failed to gain support because the media and most of the public have a built in defence against these kind of tactics. You go out there saying “Bang ! Crash ! – Here we are, and we don’t care” and what happens – cries of “My God, how dare you do this ?” from the Press and T.V. etc. The result being that, far from furthering the cause – you frighten would-be members off ! No, I think to continue the magazine in its present format is far the wisest thing – after all we can all get hold of these other publications if we really want them. If anything, there could be a little more variety, perhaps more girls – and I am sure many members would not object to seeing boys in the 12 – 18 age group too. I think the inclusion of short stories or a serial would be a good idea, perhaps members could submit their own contributions, and I don’t see why members couldn’t contribute their own favourite photographs too – provided of course that they fit in with the objectives of the magazine.
I feel that articles written by such people on Dr. Brongersma are invaluable to our cause and I can only hope that you continue to publish his articles. There must be few among us who are not interested in nuts and bolts of paedophilia, and the inclusion of such items must surely increase our under- standing of ourselves.
It must also bring about new tolerances from the public, which at the end of the day will mean the gradual re- shaping of society’s attitude towards us.
Yours 214.’ (p. 3)

Brongersma, ‘Paedophilia: The Effects’, p. 4
[….]
It is said, rightly, that we’re not allowed to sacrifice children in order to solve our adult sexual problems. This was meant as a warning to the paedophile. But it is equally justified to address this admonition to parents and educators who have an emotional negative attitude to sex. How many children have been sacrificed, tortured, abused, troubled or even driven to suicide by adult prejudices against masturbation, now proven to be stupid nonsense and generally considered to be devoid of the least foundation? Let’s take care that the same doesn’t happen with the negative ideas most people foster against other sexual activities of children!

The child is definitely not a non- sexual being, but has its sexual impulses right from its birth. Babies may masturbate, even to orgasm, without behaving abnormally. The young child has, as everyone knows, strong sexual interests. Then follows the so-called latency period in which sexuality seems to sleep. But now we know more about other periods of western history and other non-western cultures, we must confess that this latency period is only the result of our suppressing culture and that the child of six to twelve, if left to its true nature, abounds in sexual play. Then the sexual impulse comes to a turbulent life in prepuberty, to reach in the years of puberty itself a force never equalled during the rest of its life.

The image of the a-sexual “innocent” child is not the outcome of scientific observation, but only of wishful imagination. We ought not to sacrifice children to this invention of people abhorring sexuality, that is: human nature as it is created. Of course the sexual life of a child is in a process of development, as every other aspect of its life. It should therefore be approached with care and consideration. It should not be suppressed or ignored. The child needs its sexual play, as all higher animals do, to prepare itself for a complete adult sex life. The cultural suppression of the child’s sexuality lies at the root of many divorces and unhappy marriages.

A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child, may be even beneficial, provided the adult partner is considerate, loving, affectionate. The confusion of tongues about the influence of such relations is produced by the fact that nearly all studies on this subject are founded on criminal cases, throwing on one heap together, rapes and violent assaults with cases of accidental contacts devoid of any traumatic or lasting effect, as well as with cases of intimate loving relations. If we don’t discriminate between the deeds of people who, under the stress of sexual abstinence throw themselves on a child while in reality preferring an older partner, and the deeds of paedophile people with erotic preference for a child, we will come nowhere. Most statistics and “scientific” deductions are calculated upon this chaotic mixture of very dissimilar situations and therefore worthless.

All acts of violence and compulsion are, by their nature, traumatic and should be fought as morally bad and criminal. But what is the influence of an erotic relationship to which the child is spontaneously consenting or which it solicited itself?

In order to deal with this question we have, to start with, one popular prejudice to clear away: boys are perverted by sexual contacts with adult males and are “made” homophiles themselves. This widespread belief was at the origin of many penal laws, but it is completely unfounded. On few points there is much unanimity among expert commissions that studied this subject (Wolfenden, Cardinal Griffin in England, Speijer in Holland) and authoritative scientists: nobody becomes a homophile by seduction. Homophilia. if it is not an inborn quality, finds its origin in the first years of human life; if a boy is not a homophile at five or six years of age, he’ll never become one, regardless of how many homosexual acts he may participate in. This is shown best by boy- prostitutes and other boys who have sexual contacts with males for years on end while maintaining their sexual preference for girls.

Apart from this outdated prejudice, scientific literature enumerates many bad effects on children as a result from sexual approaches by adults. But this doesn’t help us to gain insight in this matter, in so far as this literature – as stated above – doesn’t make any clear-cut division between approaches which may be characterized as assaults (and therefore more or less traumatic) and those which are expressions of love and affection, experienced as such by the child (and therefore not traumatic).
[….]

It is pedagogically important, however, to see that this state of affairs is not protecting children but rather is a menace to their well-being. There is no reason to think lightly about the terrific damage inflicted on children who are subjected to parental outbursts of rage or dismay and to police enquiries on the discovery of the fact that they had, often at their own instigation and in any case with their own consent, affectionate erotic relations with an adult lover. When parents come to know that their son or daughter has had such relations, they should, in the very interest of their child, proceed with the utmost caution. Their first duty is to try to understand the real feelings of their child, not giving way to common prejudices.

It asks for some psychological discernment to see that – and why – some experiences in this field may be a source of fear and anxiety to one child, while to the other they are something unique, fantastic and delicious. Children who haven’t been brought up in an un- healthy fear of everything sexual, who have had sexual play with comrades, who were not taught to be disgusted by the body and its functions and who don’t have an abnormally weak sexual impulse, will mostly react positively when approached by a sympathetic adult. In more than 50% of the cases they even take the initiative themselves.

Nowadays there are more and more expert authors who have an open eye for the positive effects such an affectionate relation may have. No wonder! Could real love, affection, sympathy, tenderness ever have a bad effect on the evolution of a human being? The ancient Greeks had their wisdom about this and in our present day the official Speijer Commission, appointed by the Dutch government, came to the conclusion that “in a number of cases (heterosexual as well as homosexual) initiation by an adult may result in a better evolution of the boy or girl concerned”. The German scientist Prof. Schlegel advances the opinion that sexual contacts with an adult may be as necessary at puberty as maternal love and tenderness in the first period of life. Mature sexual behaviour has to be learned by children’s sexual play as many ethnological researches show. If our society had better understanding of this, our adolescents would enjoy more sexual liberty and be less tempted to aggressive behaviour.

‘Everyone knows the “Child Protection Bill” will pass. It is another misnomer, like “indecent assault” when applied to mutually desired and consenting happenings. This Bill is not designed to protect children (where does “childhood” end anyway?) but to “oppress” them. It seems that when you are a child, everything is illegal. You certainly can’t have sex with anyone. When I was fourteen and horny as hell, it was maddening to know that I was only allowed by law to do it to myself, by myself, and then only in secret from my parents because they even thought that was wrong. It was illegal for me to have sex with a man – I had to be ‘ protected”. Now that I am grown up. and have finally reached the “age of consent” it is illegal for me to have sex with a fourteen year old boy. He has to be protected. So I’ve lost out both ways, first as a boy. then as a man. If only I had known that it was legal to be photographed in an “indecent” pose! I might have had some pictures to look back on. 1 knew I had a beautiful body at that age – I used to admire myself in the mirror. But now a boy will have to keep himself under wraps until he is hairy and ugly. I still don’t know what I was supposed to have been protected from as a youngster. I wanted sex and couldn’t have it. and I am still mad at society for it. [….]’ (Paul Green, ‘Protection or Overprotection?’, p. 5)

Article ‘Pedofili i Norge – A Better Society’, translated from the BULLETIN of the Norwegian Paedophile Workgroup, p. 6.

‘Child Porn’, p. 7

“Porn’s evil men
on the run” (newspaper banner headline)

“I cannot understand the
mentality of people who
produce such muck”
(MP quoted in newspaper)
I’ve been looking at some “such muck”
pictures of naked boys
with beautiful bodies

traceried rib cages
knees like rounded nuts
a delicate black flash of pubic hair

and happy faces
not particularly exploited
(no more than by capitalism, advertising or education)

Sirs, your “campaign” is motivated by hate
of sex, of the human nude, of the possibility of deviance.
You, who refuse to contemplate the existence of more than one view,
you are the “evil men”.

[With picture of Pied Piper next to it]

Richard James, ‘A Jubilee Song’, p. 7

‘The disturbed boy quivering in his teacher’s hands
and scraping at their flesh with his nails, because he
knows he can expect nothing
but entertains fantasies of smashing everyone’s heads
— what have we done for this?

The poor harmless paedophile imprisoned
for a reciprocal love, and scalded as a “nonce”
(but Mrs. Whitehouse says who considers the children?)
— what has he done for this?

My own poor grown-up gay lover from the East End of London
accustomed by dad’s beatings to being out of work
behind with the rent, and your name in the local paper
— what have you done for this?

A black boy and a white boy, two friends
happily making love to one another, the one buying wranglers jeans
because they above all things turn his lover on
— may we go through hell-fire and high water that we
may be worthy of these

and may we all at last have peace. ‘

‘You show me yours…’, pp. 8-9

‘Remember playing Doctors ? As kids, most of us discover this marvelous excuse for touching and exploring another human body. The work of many social scientists and researchers have uncovered an abundance of early sexual experience – in sharp contrast to the common disclaimers from parents and teachers alike that the years before puberty are not sexual, not REALLY.

Statements about children being uninterested in sex are becoming less and less credible. The belief that preadolescence represents a period of sexual latency or inactivity is being rejected along with several other Freudian teachings. In their place we find a new understanding of sexual development as a lifelong process that begins at birth.

Birth — 2 years
Boys are often born with erections, and although there is no documentated evidence, there is no reason to suppose that girls do not enter this world in the same state. All of the sexual response equipment is present and operative on day one – it is the reproductive systems that do not develop until puberty. One study of nine male babies (aged 3 – 20 weeks) reported that the number of erections varied from five to forty per day. Fretting, crying and stretching usually accompanied the erection, which was followed by playful and relaxed behaviour.

During the first four weeks of life, the infant girl sustains an extraordinary though temporary degree of sexual de- velopment. Her genitals are swollen and red because of the remaining maternal hormones which produce a momentary masturbation. Her vagina also shows physiologic patterns, including secretion, similar to those of an adult woman. With all that equipment ready for arousal, it’s no surprise that genital play is one of most infants earliest experiences. A psychologist studied one infants genital play during his first and second years. The infant watched his penis bounce up and down when he sucked his stomach in. He let the bath water run over his penis until it became erect. He stimulated himself intensively once a week, and explored his genitals with moderate interest three times each week. He put his favourite stuffed toy between his thighs and squeezed, while having a partial erection.

Infants in the first year of life are not generally capable of the direct, voluntary action we call masturbation, but occasionally, infants do specifically stimulate themselves. The Kinsey report found six boys under the age of one year, and twenty three girls under the age of three years who masturbated to orgasm. There is no reason to think that these children were abnormal because they displayed their sexuality. More likely they were simply the ones who were spared the harsh lessons usually delivered when children touch themselves “down there”. Although a mother stimulates the infants genitals when bathing etc., she also often scolds and slaps hands when infants do the same thing. Such a young mind cannot understand this inconsistency, but it does set the stage for developing the negative attitude towards sexuality that plagues many an adult.

Modern psychologists now consider that erotic genital play is a good indicator of whether the infant is getting enough physical affection. Research shows that infants who receive large amounts of affection display high levels of genital play. Because giving adequate physical affection involves the possibility of arousal, the first outsider included in our sexuality is usually a parent. How parents handle these encounters is important to the infant, and possibly to society as well. An American psychologist, James Prescott, suggests that societies which promote physical pleasure among children are peaceful. Those which punish pleasure are violent. He believes that a society can reduce future levels of war and crime by providing more physical affection between parents and children, and more sexual pleasure for children.

3 to 7 years
An explosion of sexiness follows the hazy sensuality of infancy. Now children bloom into romantics and dive joyfully into a period of unrestrained emotional and physical affection: hugging and kissing etc. Children of this age will often copy what they have seen – at home, on television, etc.. and this is when they begin to bring other kids into their sexual adventures. The game of “You show me yours and I’ll show you mine” seems to be a favourite everywhere.

Cohorts get involved in cuddling, handling, and sucking each others sex organs, and attempts at intercourse – both anal and genital, hetrosexual and homosexual. Homosexuality is a normal part of growing up for both boys and girls, and is usually just a stepping stone on the way to adult hetrosexuality.

Many youngsters are often intro- duced to more advanced sexual play by slightly older children. Like so many other aspects of life, here the old teach the young. One young girl remembers “He (age II) asked me (age 5) if I wanted to play doctors. Thinking it was all in fun, I said yes. He informed me that he was the doctor and I was the patient. I was pregnant, and he was going to operate. He undid my pants, took them off, and did the same to his. He tried to have intercourse, but did not suceed”.

Another girls first experience was more scary than fun — “Bill and I, (both aged 5 years) were close friends, and the two of us went over to Tom’s house to play. Tom (aged 9 years) locked us in the bedroom. We could only go if we exposed ourselves physically to each other. We undressed, and Tom immediately fondled Bill’s penis, and then tried to touch my vagina. I either cried or screamed, and he stopped. I think where I became con- fused, was that at home, nakedness was common, accepted, and associated with good thoughts “.

Kindergarten age girls often try putting objects on or into their genitals. One woman recalls “Some afternoons we would lock ourselves in a bedroom and take our pants off. We took turns laying on the bed and putting pennies, marbles, etc., between our legs. Two other girls liked to pretend they were boys, and used a pencil for a penis. As the ritual became old hat. it passed out of existence”.

8 to 13 years
Until fairly recently, these years have been considered a period of sexual quiescence, a time when sexual interest takes a little time off before the big push at puberty, but in societies which allow children sexual freedom, youngsters increase their sexual activities during these years. This implies that the low levels of sexual activities expected then are more a function of old fashioned repression than of natural development. In fact, preadolescence may be a time when all we have learnt about sex comes into focus. If guilt has been the environment of sex. then fantasies of torture, masochism and sadism may erupt. Throughout these years, kids investigate every possible source of sexual pleasure. The techniques of gratification they discover are endless. “Circle jerk”, or group masturbation is a common one amongst boys. They sit in a circle, and masturbate to orgasm, often awarding special praise to those who “shoot” fastest or furthest. Climbing ropes or poles can often have a very gratifying effect!

America has produced several secret societies which foster sexual freedom between children, and between children and adults. One which has gone totally public, is the Guyon Society, whose members allow their offspring whatever sexual expression they want. The Child Sensuality Circle, a semi-public organisation based in San Diego, is one of five major groups seeking sexual freedom for children, and are now broadening their focus to cover the general liberation of children – legal and social as well as sexual An American doctor sums up with a view which is slowly becoming more and more acceptable to society:
“Personally. I like the idea of adult sex without children involved, but for the child’s sake, and for society’s sake, we’ve got to start allowing our children more sexual freedom instead of constantly burdening them with guilt and misinformation”. ‘
(adapted from an Article in Forum)

[Cartoon of a boy on a bench saying to an older man, holding a newspaper with a headline ‘Child Sex Attack’, ‘Would ya like a sweet, Mister?’. Drawn by Dominik.]

And a cutting: ‘’NO PIE’ BOY SACKED BY SCHOOL’, sent in by a reader – comment ‘progressive education rules OK?’ (p. 9)

Keith Spence, ‘I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE and it works’, p. 10

‘I met him at the local swimming-pool. He was by himself, practising jumping feet-first off the spring-board with a single-mindedness that suggested Olympic training. 1 guessed he was about twelve years-old – his long, coltish body was still softened by the last traces of puppy-fat, but the way he stood and moved showed that he was growing up fast. He had silver-birch-blonde hair dropping to his shoulders, and grey eyes that sparkled when he laughed. And freckles. I’m kinky for freckles. He was absolutely my kind of kid.

For half-an-hour we jumped, dived, splashed, wrestled, ducked, bombed, and generally behaved in a thoroughly irresponsible fashion: and all without speaking a word. But finally, when we had dried and changed. I decided that the time had come to put our friendship onto a more regular basis.

“Do you want a coke?” I asked.

“Ferlot?” he said. “Vad sayer du?”

“A coke” I said, pantomiming desperately. “To drink. Do you want? Do you speak English?”

“Ferlot” he repeated, “jag forstor inte. Nu maste jag go. Hcj-do”. And he grinned maddeningly, waved once, and was gone.

If you think England is frustrating for paedophiles, you should try living in Sweden for a bit.

Admittedly the problems are rather different. In England, where children are only allowed contact with adults for purposes of punishment, and can’t take their socks off in public in case they start an orgy, the difficulty is to meet kids at all. Here in Sweden, making friends with them is laughably easy. The problems – – at least for a thick foreigner like me – – come from being forced to communicate almost entirely through sign-language. After three months, my Swedish vocabulary is still limited to such earth-shattering remarks as “There are three cats underneath the table” and “My hat is blue but yours is yellow”, which I’m sure will come in useful one day, but are not really very appropriate as the basis for a deep romantic relationship. The frustration is compounded by the fact that Swedish children are the most heart- shatteringly beautiful in the world: so that quite often, when walking down the street, the sight of one can literally stop you in your tracks and leave you gasping for breath. And as if this were not enough, the long-suffering paedophile visitor to Sweden also has to face the torment of various depraved Scandanavian practices, of which the most fiendish is undoubtedly the bastu or sauna. This institution is a large hot room, regularly patrolled by troops of highly uninhibited naked children. The result is that one sits there for far too long, turning the colour of raw beef, because one’s physical condition makes it impossible to walk out with any degree of dignity. It’s hell. I tell you! Sheer hell!

Actually, while sitting in the bastu last week, gazing at and being gazed at by a couple of faun-like children whose incipient adolescence was spectacularly in evidence, 1 found myself wondering what daft old Mrs. Whitehouse would have thought about it all. Here were two boys who, being Swedish, would have been accustomed to nakedness – – their own and other people’s – – from a few months old. They would already have received a thorough, factual and liberal sexual education. They would certainly have been encouraged to question and to experiment: that is how children are normally brought up in Sweden. Yet Swedish children are not promiscuous, nor has their health and happiness been ruined by whatever nameless horrors it is that Mrs. Whitehouse so abjectly dreads (to the best of my knowledge she has ‘never exactly specified what it is that she fears from allowing children to understand and acknowledge their sexuality. Whatever it is. it hasn’t happened in Sweden). On the other hand, children aren’t frightened by the changes in their bodies, nor in any way ashamed of them.

I suppose the secret is that children in Sweden are respected, and their rights are acknowledged in a way they have never been in Britain. That much is obvious as soon as you step into a Swedish school. Swedish children come to school because it is fun, and because they understand that it is important for them to learn. Once there, they are not urged to be ‘better’ than the other pupils – – there is no top (or bottom) of the form. Instead, the cleverer pupils help the less clever ones, and any academic achievement is the achievement of the class as a whole. Swedish school-children learn, before anything else, to co- operate, to tolerate, and to trust each other. Teachers are friends and equals, and one teacher may stay with the same class, every lesson, for two or three years. There is no compulsion, no formality. Christian names are always used, even to the headmaster. Above all, there is no fear: Sweden has a strict law that nobody – – not teachers, not police, not even parents – – may ever strike a child. A teacher who hit one of his pupils would be dismissed on the spot, and would probably appear in court. There are, in fact, no punishments at all in Swedish schools. The system isn’t based on punishment, it’s based on mutual respect and co-operation. And – – I’m sorry, Mr. Rhodes Boyson, but you’re wrong. It works.

Of course, as a refugee from England granted asylum in Swedish schools, it has taken me a little time to get used to the way things are done here. It’s a bit disconcerting to see a fifteen-year-old boy at the back of one’s class contentedly smoking a pipe, for example; or to have two fourteen-year-old girls politely excuse themselves from a lesson be- cause they have to cook supper for their boy-friends. And then there- was the class of ten-year-olds who were so excited at speaking English with a real Englishman that they barricaded the door at the end of the lesson and refused to let me out. Imagine being kidnapped by 22 Swedish children! I was quite rude to the Swedish teacher who rescued me. Of course, too, the system does have its drawbacks. It is criticised for not giving enough encouragement to unusually gifted children: and for not teaching pupils ambition (a questionable virtue anyway). Also, it would fail disasterously if it didn’t have total dedication from Swedish teachers- – a teacher who didn’t love kids unquestioningly and unconditionally could destroy an entire class. (That doesn’t happen. And a strike by Swedish teachers is unimaginable). But the few risks and disadvantages are a comparatively small price to pay for the joy of seeing a whole generation growing up free from aggression, loneliness, mistrust or fear.

In Sweden, one by one, the sacred cows of the ‘professional educators’ are being quietly herded off to the knacker’s yard and slaughtered. Discipline? Forget it. Rigid rules should only be needed when people can’t think for themselves; here they respect kids’ common sense instead. Religious instruction? That went long ago. The nuclear family? Sweden must have the world’s highest proportion of unmarried and seperated parents: but because such things arc treated without rancour or guilt, the children don’t often seem to suffer. Youthful innocence? Yes – – but here it means absence of shame, not absence of knowledge. And “Protection of Children?” Emphatically, yes! Swedish children are protected, by law. from violence, pain, destitution, exploitation and discrimination. I only wish the same could be said of Britain. Well – – alright. Perhaps I’m getting a bit carried away. And I can’t pretend that Sweden hasn’t got its problems – – they exist here as they do anywhere else. But after the joyless, loveless emotional waste-land which is childhood in Britain, the vividness and happiness of Swedish kids is strong medicine. Sweden may not have all the answers – – but it’s a damn sight closer to them than any other country I’ve visited, and working in Swedish schools is an enthralling experience. Now all I need is a decent phrase-book. Does anyone know the Swedish for “Will you come to the cinema with me on Saturday?” ‘

David Remfrey, ‘Images of Childhood’ – picture of two young girls sitting at a table, one pouring something like a cup of tea

‘I hope I was not the only one among us to visit the exhibition of drawings and paintings by David Remfry at the Mercury Gallery, Cork Street, London. Entitled Images of Childhood these paintings and drawings, mostly of little girls, have a calm beauty and subtle eroticism of great appeal. More often than not posed against a blank wall, barefoot on carpet, barekneed on chairs, simply dressed or not at all, playing hide and seek in a birthday suit behind the jardiniere, these children are caught, frozen in mid-dance, reclining on day beds, leaning listlessly, lost in sadness, pouring tea or simply playing, exempt from time yet dimly aware each day is one day nearer the gates of the Garden of Eden. Full of foreboding for the end of childhood, knowing they must grow up and what growing up means, these still nymphets are filled with unease and recall those many portraits of the Virgin looking wistfully at the Christ Child, as a mother protective, yet as the Mother conscious of, and resigned to, the Cross. For all their charm and apparent innocence, these paintings never lapse into sentimentality, and never do so because the subjects are clearly as aware as the painter of their potential appeal. Yet the eroticism is muted, not blatant as in Balthus’ paintings of pubescent girls, curiously English, reserved, belonging indoors, unrequited. It is precisely the eroticism of paedophilia, the attraction of the unattainable, the charm of cool remote children, the yearning to touch the untouched, tenderly. The distance between us and childhood, children, is the hallmark of paedophilic yearning, the rosegrey dream which dooms us, for when it is eclipsed in intercourse, there is the worm in the bud. Despair inevitably follows, not at once in the flush of passion, but later in twilight when we dimly perceive that our dream can never be incorporated in the smooth precise flesh of any child, not because children grow up, but because they must never cease to be distant. This is our dilemma: the child possessed is no longer child. Possessed, and a sword shall pierce the heart. So Remfry’s children, solitary especially in company, remain aloof, retain their distance, which is precisely their presence, and beckon us. only to ask us to go.’
C.J. Bradbury-Robinson (p. 11)

‘Hero and Lover’, p. 12

‘Both boys and girls can benefit from a responsible paedophile relationship with an adult friend that they can look up to, talk out their problems with, play with and learn from. The boy sees his man friend as a model to emulate in his self-development. The girl may see her man friend as more of a romantic hero. Likewise the lesbian paedophile relationship is based on the emulation self-development concept and the woman/boy relationship of one of romantic fulfillment. The responsible paedophile should not take advantage of this hero-worship just to satisfy sexual drives, but rather to be a supplemental teacher/parent in all phases of the child’s development. This should include basic friendship, teaching of ethical values, guidance and, ideally, dealing with matters of love and sensuality. With the adult as hero, he/she has the responsibility to place the welfare of the child first. A hero must live up to his honour. ‘

A further crossword, p. 12

Issue No. 12, December 1978 [Note that this was the issue preceding that in which NCCL took out an advert]

‘Magpie Comment’, p. 1
On Whitewash, who want to see PIE banned. (Whitehouse, presumably)

Compare themselves to IRA – ‘we do not use bombs and bullets to back up our arguments’

Apparently Tory MP Bill Benyon (an anti-abortionist) ‘bravely issued a press statement some time ago supporting Tom O’Carroll’s right to free speech in connection with paedophilia’

Demonstration outside British embassy in Oslo, Norway, about press and police harassment of PIE.

‘Lift PIE Ban, Gay News Told’.
WHS had refused to stock Gay News because of too much paedophilia.

‘News of the World’
Tom O’Carroll made complaint to Press Council about NOTW article in which he was dubbed ‘The nastiest man in Britain’ – about alleged errors of fact in the article.

‘David Grove Resigns’, p. 2 – becomes second life member, after Keith Hose, after Grove resigned as Secretary. Had joined in 1975.
Grove produced Childhood rights, running an anti-corporal punishment campaign, backed by Baroness Wooton and A.J. Ayer.

Review from Time Out of film “Montreal Main”. About an unemployed artist-photographer, Frank Vitale, who falls in love with 12-year-old Johnny. (p. 2)

‘Drug abuses’, p. 2. On two convicted paedophiles, who with help of National Association for Mental Health, are suing D of Health and doctors at Broadmoor for effects of hormone treatment – grew breasts which had to be surgically removed.

Item on p. 3:
‘Recent weeks have seen a veritable plethora of good viewing for “child sex persons” (a quaint term of endearment).
On TV: Truffaut films – L’enfant sauvage, Les Quatre Cent Coups.
Mark Lester molesting Britt Ekland in Night Hair Child.
More Truffaut, incl interview
Theatre: Annie; Bar Mitzvah Boy, revival of Oliver; cinema Fellini Satyricon; Tenderness of the Wolves, Lord of the Flies, and Blood Relatives, with Donald Sutherland, and Donald Pleasance as manic paedophile.

‘Pie Criticised Again – But This Time It’s Friendly!’, p. 4.
Review by Patrick Micel, of Libertarian Education, of Paedophilia: some Questions and Answers. Reprinted. Says that the pamphlet makes it seem to safe and easy, which it will never be. Says paedophilia ‘is sexist – a man will be imprisoned for acts thought laudable in a woman, particularly if the woman is the mother of the child concerned’
‘My last word to PIE is: be realistic – demand the impossible’

Various pictures of boys, aged c. 7-11, p. 5.

‘Feminism & Sexuality’, p. 6.
[…]
‘In the same way that countless women grow up, are married and go through their whole lives without realising that the attraction they feel for other women is, in fact, sexual and they are really gay, many women do not identify their feeling of love and attraction to children as sexual. Perhaps they don’t really enjoy sex with men, but get enormous pleasure from cuddling, caressing and bathing children. They get satisfaction from this but don’t see their natural spontaneous feelings as anything to do with paedophilia. A friend of mine, whose girlfriend had a baby, enjoyed a close loving relationship with the child and DID see it as sexual. They had a lot of fun together.

In Mexico mothers and grandmothers often lick their babies’ genitals to soothe them to sleep. The babies obviously like it. Is this a sexual assault? Should they all be arrested? It’s well known that babies and small children need to be touched and held a lot, otherwise they suffer severe emotional problems that can continue throughout their lives. So when do we define a touch as sexual?
And indeed, should we make that distinction at all?’

Column, p. 6, mentioning that hetero paedophilia insufficiently covered – will try to put this right.

Tom O’Carroll, ‘Is PIE Sexist?’, pp. 7-9
[…]
‘It has to be recognised that within the feminist movement there is an element for whom to be anti-sexist is ultimately to be anti-sexual, in a way which would make it impossible by definition for any man to have an acceptable, non-sexist paedophilic relationship. Arguably, most paedophiles are women, who get their buzz out of the intimacy of motherhood, but men who fancy kids are increasingly being labelled sexist, and it is a tag which is being attached specifically to the contents of this very magazine.’ (p. 7)
[…]
[As Gree Blachford, writing in Gay Left, has pointed out: “in our specialised society we objectify people all the time. When we purchase goods, we make the sales clerk into an object to satisfy our needs.” The important point is that in our society, it is thought to be demeaning for a woman to make herself available as an impersonal object for the satisfaction of a man’s sexual needs – by posing for a porn photo, say. In view of the fact that (following Blachford) objectification is otherwise acceptable, by elementary logic it is the sexuality that is problematic.’ (p. 7)

[More on this – arguing that many feminists see the sex act itself as inherently demeaning or degrading, pp. 7-8]

‘Feminists persist in feeling that objectification does matter. That it matters a great deal. They see that in a sexually guilt-ridden society the “degradation” of women in porn reinforces man’s view of his own superiority in the “natural” order of things; it reinforces the servile, passive nature of feminity [sic]. They are right, though they over-estimate the influence of such reinforcement: in Arab countries where no pornography is allowed, one finds the status of women much lower than it is here. Porn rankles so much with feminists here not so much because it is the cause of female oppression, no, even because it significantly adds to that oppression, but because it is such a [for them] visible symbol that the oppression exists. Nevertheless, it should be insisted that the cultural bias against women in our society is transmitted from the nursery onwards, in sexist education – by the time a boy is exposed to his first porn pix his attitude to girls I largely determined. What’s more, I believe that the solutions proposed by some women – which essentially lie in censorship and the total rejection of all male sexuality – are not only draconian, but take us back to an even more anti-sexual society than we have now. To a new Puritanism.

To understand this, one has to realise that an important element within the feminist attack is really directed not just against man in our society – the society and its values can be changed – but against the innate nature of the male sex, against the cardinal, biological nature of man. It is an emotional rejection of the penis, and of penetration. For some women to be fucked is always rape, no matter how unchauvinistic the individual man may be, no matter how sensitive or even “feminine” he is. He is a man, and that is bad enough – though it would be hard to formulate a more sexist notion than that! Theirs is the kind of thinking that defines all men as potential rapists – an idea which may be philosophically hard to deny, but which is hardly a celebration of the potential joy of sex either.

Some radical women – Germaine Greer is a notable one – do understand this happier potential. She has realised that there is liberation to be had not in retreating from men, but in going out and fucking them, in seeing the positive virtue of female sexual aggression (using the word in the original sense of coming forward, of taking initatives – not to be confused with destructive or sadistic impulses), of being active rather than passive in the se act itself. Her views are clearly pro-sexual, pro-fun. (p. 8)

[….]

‘Jane Gale (a woman, be it noted), put it well: “sexual acts between children are often considered exploratory and are consequently acceptable. Between child and adult the act is not considered exploratory, but rather a power relationship as the adult has a greater life experience and a greater propensity for evil and by his superior physical and mental strength may harm the child far more than another child could. It must be remembered that the adult, if he has a greater propensity for evil, also has a greater propensity for good. If a relationship should be deemed unacceptable because of the unequal distribution of power, then mot heterosexual adult relationships are unacceptable. The greater life experience of the adult may be more beneficial to the child than a relationship with someone of his own age.” (University of Kent, M.A. thesis) (p. 9)

[….]

‘Surely, I thought, we of all people, in PIE, should be in the forefront of raising levels of consciousness, among our own members, as well as others, as to the dignity and rights of young people – an emphasis requiring a very different vocabulary. I then went on to ask myself what this vocabulary should be. After all, the word “kids” and even “children” has patronising overtones. Shouldn’t we always use a dignified phrase like “young people”? One only has to make the suggestion to realise what sort of blind alley it leads us into: that of intense, earnest moralising talk, over-solemn and, as ever, hedged around by guilt – for woe-betide then the “backslider” who in an unwitting moment lets slip a “sexist” word.

I hope that in future PIE, and in particular Magpie, will pay attention to serious issues of children’s rights and to changing the oppressive attitudes to kids which some of our own (often well-intentioned) members may unconsciously have. Equally, our critics must realise that we are a tiny organisation, and that not many among us have had contact with “liberated” ideas through either the feminist or gay movements: most are very isolated. Our members include authoritarian teachers who believe that to spare the rod is to spoil the child. We have vicars and scoutmasters whose task includes the positive inculcation of oppressive establishment ideas. In no sense are we a cohesive radical group of like minds. (p. 9)

[…..]

p. 10 – lots of pictures of boys, c. 9-11, playing on skateboards.

‘The Paedophiles’, pp. 11-13. Reprint of a cover story appearing in The Hague Post (De Haagse Post), March 18, 1978.

Michael Berkel speaking with some children, a mother and with paedophiles.

Talking to a boy about why he likes a relationship with a man 30 years older (p. 11)

Talking to a man called Frans, a widower, and father of three children. Then talking to one of his sons, asking what he thinks of his father having a paedophile relationship with 14-year old Sander – asking such things as what he thinks of seeing his father and Sander lying in bed together (pp. 11-12)

‘”Don’t you find it strange to find your father and Sander lying in bed together?”
The son: “Why should I find it strange?”
Frans: “At first he was quite jealous of Sander. Suddenly someone his own age was taking his place in the home. But now all’s well and they no longer quabble with each other. Then, too, Sander is such a wonderful kid. I met him in the amusement arcade. He was playing one of the flipper machines and I said, ‘Hey, you don’t know what you are doing’. Immediate contact. Later we got some ice cream. Since then we have seen each other every day. We were like a pair of cooing doves. Whoever came to visit us was shoed away. We do everything sexually and emotionally that grown-ups do. We got out together. I take him with me on family visits, that sort of thing. No, my family doesn’t understand it but they have accepted it.”
Sander: “He never says things I don’t understand. You just don’t notice that he is so much older.”
Frans: “but now Sander’s family has moved out of the neighbourhood and I don’t see him so often. That’s hard on me, and it makes me very sad. Sometimes during the week he drops by to see me at work. My co-worked knows about us. And I see him weekends.” (p. 12)
[etc]

‘The Mother’

“According to Article 250 of the Criminal Code you are guilty of promoting lewd contact with minors. You provide the opportunity.”

Hetty (40) laughs. “Yes, in many eyes I’d be a dangerous mother figure. But that makes no difference to me. I still do it. Look, I’m not encouraging it, but I forbid nothing. I just let the child decide.”

“How open are you about it? Aren’t you afraid that it will be discovered?”

“Yes, I certainly am. Not because I will be embarrassed, but because I am in the midst of a divorce and I have not yet received final custody of the kids. If my ex-husband heard about it he would take advantage of it, I’m sure. He would probably try to take the children away from me. He would succeed because the child protection people don’t approve of these sorts of relationships. Thus we can’t be open about it. Sometimes the children’s neighbourhood friends ask Menno (12) whether he can go play with them and he says, ‘No, I’m going away on a visit’. He says that a lot because he spends most weekends with Kees. Then my heart skips a beat and I think maybe the boys will talk about that at home, and about Menno’s friend Kees, who has already been convicted once.”

“You’re very much of a libertine?”

“What is a libertine? If you have confidence in a relationship, why would you destroy it?
“I have known Kees two years. We came together when I had just left my husband. Kees helped me with all kinds of things. He became a personal friend. After the divorce I had the feeling that I was losing contact with Menno, my young son. H became so alienated from me. When I told that to Kees he said, ‘Send him to me for a while so I can talk with him. He can spend the weekend at my place’. Then I thought, ‘That’ll be good for Menno, to get out of the house’. I hoped that Kees could have some influence on him. Menno was away one day, then the weekend then the following weekend. And I thought, ‘Poor Kees has his own work and now he has to care for another man’s child. Isn’t that asking too much of him?’ I told Menno, ‘Don’t go to him this week’.
“As soon as Kees heard my son wouldn’t be coming he showed up at my door. He looked mad and he told me, ‘Why don’t you let Menno come? I know, because you know I’m a paedophile. A Child molester, as you’d say’. I used to sometimes hear that word at school but I hardly knew what it meant.
“Since then Menno has gone to Kees almost every weekend. I saw that so much empathy had grown up between them that I foud it normal that they spent so much time together. I noticed that mennow as a lot more open towards me, too. He started to talk with me again. It was striking how he changed. My oldest son commented on it, too. Menno had lost his trust in people and through Kees he has regained it.”

“Doesn’t it trouble you that they carry on sexually with each other?”

“I know nothing about the sexual aspects of their relationship. I haven’t asked. To tell the truth I don’t think I need to know. But if it happens I believe it is actually a great advantage for a child to have someone like that to guide him. To me it is a natural thing. If it grows out of a foundation fo warmth and friendship, how can it be wrong?”

“How do you bring up your children?”

“I have always brought them up in a sexually open manner. I have never failed to love them physically. I don’t hide my feelings. I myself at one time made love regularly with my brother. Until I was about 15 and my mother said, ‘You are getting too old now to crawl into bed with each other in the morning’. Then it suddenly became creepy, while before it felt completely normal. I believe as a parent you have a duty to help your children to reach sexual maturity. It is no disgrace if a father gets an erection playing with his daughter. But I’d better keep still about that because now we’re talking about incest and incest is a much greater taboo.”

“Are you yourself sexually interested in children?”

“When my eldest son gets all cleaned and combed and dressed up to go to a party I find I get a kick out of it. I am in education and I am thrown together with a lot of children of 11 or 12, but I don’t feel the same thing with them. Certainly not intellectually. They have no opinions of their own, know next to nothing, and I have asked Kees whether that isn’t a detriment to him, too, as a paedophile. But he tells me it is just as in a relationship with parents: the child himself must do something to you. You don’t fall for every boy who happens to be of that age.
“What I did find offensive was the way my ex-husband treated the children. If he wanted they had to climb into bed with him and take off their pyjamas. He made them even when they didn’t want to. You could see it embarrassed them. In the relationship between Kees and Menno these things happen naturally.”

“Would you advise other parents to pursue the same course you have?”

“Ive thought about that recently. I believe it can be a terrific protection for a child. A security. Certainly that’s so in Menno’s case because I also see it as something of a compensation for the fact that he no longer sees his father. Yet Kees is not a true father figure. There is not one bit of authority. No one is the boss. I think that later, when Menno starts going around with girls, sex will be less difficult for him, so he is already farther ahead. None of that kids’ sex play.”

“Isn’t kids’ sex play part of growing up?”

“Inexperience can be a bitter pill. You can save a lot of frustration when things don’t go right at first.”

“Professor De Levita, the child psychiatrist, has written that whenever a child is seduced into a premature sexual partnership, the growth process of that child can be destroyed.”

“Look, you can’t of course, be certain that this relationship is okay. You can only let your intuition speak. I see what I see, and for that I don’t need to read any books by psychiatrists. Menno has changed for the better. He’s less egocentric. Recently there was a TV programme on homosexuality and he went out himself and fetched Kees: “’Come here and look; there’s something you’ll find interesting’. He never would have done that before. As a mother you notice how such a relationship influences a son. If it hadn’t had meaning for Menno he wouldn’t have kept going back to Kees. That I am sure of. All this nonsense about children not being ready for it. Anyone can see that children are very much concerned with their bodies. Later they are always talking about it, or they buy condoms to go experimenting with.
“I have taught in a district of farm children. They wanted to know all sorts of things they didn’t dare ask. Then we made cards with questions on them and threw them into a hat. Then their bewilderment showed up, frustrations and miseries which the children lived with. Whether you always had to keep your clothes on when you did it, or who had to b on the top. They were very much concerned with such matters, but there was always that phrase, ‘had to’. It would be so much the best if these things just happened by themselves. And that’s happened in Menno’s case.”

“Don’t you have any reservations about this?”

“No. Truly. I am quite sincere. I have no reservations, but I am very much afraid that it will be a damnably long time before this sort of interview becomes superfluous. We’re talking about kids, right, and people involved emotionally with kids are condemned. However, things are improving – faster and faster, now, I understand. There is even an association of ‘Good Uncles’ being formed.” (pp. 12-13)

Crossword, pp. 13-14.

p. 14 – plug for next issue of Magpie including ‘Goodies for Girl-Lovers!!!’

p. 15 (back page)
Next to pic of a girl of about 7-8:
‘This is no time to sit on the fence! Magpie urgently requires your photographs, especially of girls. They should preferably be black and white, but we can still use colour snaps. Sorry, no nudes, nor anything which could be construed as too “racy” or overtly salacious. Use the photographs in this issue as a guide. Send your prints to the editor, and please specify if you wish them to be returned. We shall send £5 to the member who submits the best photograph each issue in the opinion of the EC.

Picture of c. 10 year old boy lying forwards suggestively on a fence, legs on either side of it.

Issue No. 13, April 1979

Editorial, p. 2. Usual stuff, dressed up in language of rights of children.

Underneath, the symbol of the International Year of the Child.

‘Further information on activities in Britain throughout the Year, plus suggestions for events you can organise yourself (don’t all rush at once!) are contained in the January edition of “Child’s Play”, available from: CHILD’S PLAY, FRANCIS HOUSE, FRANCIS STREET, LONDON SW1. (p. 2)
Published by ‘Child’s Play Information Centre’, which is funded by ‘Make Children Happy charity’. Supposedly ‘geared towards playleaders and youth workers, and covers book reviews, play schemes, campaigns and courses. A central information library has also been set up, (tel: 01 828 9055). Why not let MAGPIE know of any events you organise yourself… with photos?’ (p. 2)

‘Gay News Breaks its Silence’
‘At long last the big battalions in the gay scene have woken up to the existence of PIE’s QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS booklet. There have been reviews in both Gay News and in the CHE journal Broadsheet.
The Gay News review (25th January ’79 no. 159) by Jeffrey Weeks, himself an historian of the gay movement and a leading light of the Gay Left collective, is both full and positive, saying that the booklet has made “a useful starting point for a rational debate”.
The Broadsheet (February ’79) review is much more combative, but does at least endorse the main aim of the booklet – that of dispelling the ignorance, fear and prejudice which surround paedophilia – and concedes unequivocally that “it is important to have it established that the disruption of a paedophile relationship which the child desires is as destructive as the relationship itself can be creative and valuable”.
The winter issue of Gay Left also contains a lengthy and interesting editorial on paedophilia, to which PIE will be making a response in the spring issue.’ (p. 3)

p. 4 ‘It’s All Happening in…. Boston! A Report from Chairperson Tom O’Carroll on an American “New Deal” for Paedophiles’

Mentions DA trying to start a witch hung against gays, but also ‘formation of a brand new paedophile organisation covering the whole North American continent.’
About Boston-Boise Committee and Tom Reeves.

‘A Boy Lover’s Jamboree’, p. 4.
Report on Boston conference on May[sic]-Boy Love and The Age of Consent, held in December last year.

‘Boston: Is There a Lesson for PIE?’, by TOC
Mentioning how ‘Reeves was able to mobilise the support of much of that [gay] community (of which he feels himself to be a part) in sharp distinction to the relative isolation faced by PIE.[…] It would be nice for PIE to get the support of gays in the same way. But where would that leave the little boy and girl lovers? More importantly, where would it leave the revolution aimed at children being free to grow up in a society free from sexual guilt?’ […] (p. 5)

‘Thoughts on the Theme of Love’, by Cliff
Passages from Coleman, Keats, Blake, Kaufmann, Barford, and Miller (p. 5)

‘The Brownie Annual ‘79’, reviewed by Edward Dipfinger (Dip. Ed)
‘To be honest, I only buy Brownie annuals for the colour photographs of little girls with flat chests. And the 1979 Annual has rather a lot of these. But for the lover of girl-children with a tiny bubble of hot mischief in his loins there is a sort of hopeless beauty about nearly everything either inside or on the front cover of a brownie Annual. Of course, I realise very clearly that the Annual (by its nature) deos not invite grown-ups. Yet the paedophile’s cup of tea is often his elevenses – to repeat a joke I overheard a lollipop man permit himself one sunshine afternoon many school terms ago – and Brownies are eleven years of age, or younger… so there ought to be something in the annual to interest most hets. Personally, I always find Brownie Annuals extremely readable and worthwhile. Full of ideas and chock-a-block with up-to-date inside info on pack holidays and revels, the Annual never fails to please.
Robert Moss, the puttering fussy editor of the annual, is consistently dull and naïve. His vision of childhood is prim and sane, far too prim and sane to handle this delightful sub-species of Girl Guide, and so his book keeps drifting into unexpected havoc. It is absolutely loaded with those hints and jokes which tease like a U-film whisper.
Patience, a little wit, and perhaps an ounce or two of imagination, are the only gifts one needs to read between the lines… to peep behind the fig-leaves, as it were. It is easy and it is fun. And who said ripeness was next to rottenness?’ (p. 6)

‘Indecency in the House’, p. 7
About a Private Members Bill sponsored by MP Hugh Rossi, making it an offence to display ‘indecent’ material anywhere in public, with exception of museums, art galleries, and television.
‘Allan Gloak, a gay magazine publisher, said “this bill is dangerous. If it ever becomes law there’s no doubt in my mind that it’s going to be used for a censorship crackdown”.’ (p. 7)

‘Pie Victim of the child porn act’, p. 7
About how a ‘girl-lover’ from Blackpool, a former PIE member, received a fine of £400 + £200 costs after police found child porn mags and photos in his car. ‘Possession in itself is not a crime under the Act, but the defendant was said to have had the offending material with a view to showing or distributing it, and this is illegal.’
Resulted from the NOTW reproducing a contact ad from Magpie last year (‘Male, interest in girls 6-13, would like to correspond & meet others’), and the police tracing him. He said ‘But I cancelled his membership because all the members appeared to like little boys. I know I like girls and that is wrong but I hate anyone who messes about with little boys.”
Comments under from Magpie – detesting both the law and its implementation, and also the hypocrisy of the man.

‘Sex without Shame’, TOC, p. 8
About book of that name by Dr Alayne Yates. She thinks parents should encourage children to have sex, and that ‘intercourse could begin at four years, and that many incest relationships, including those between father and daughter, can be a positive experience’

‘Statuesque Kids’
‘Are there any interesting statues of kids near you: in local parks/museums/galleries? We are hoping to run, possibly next issue, a photo guide to the best in child statuary. Your help would be appreciated.’ (p. 8)

Letter ‘Is Pie Sexist’, reply by a female member to Tom O’Carroll’s article, pp. 9-10.
[….]
‘As you point out, children’s rights are important to PIE. It is absolutely vital. Unless children have some control over their own bodies and their own lives, there will always be possibilities for adults to take advantage of, and exploit, children, sexually (just as they exploit children and use their power over them in so many other ways now).

If PIE is to be an organisation working towards a better society and sexual liberation, it must work towards a state where children can give free and informed consent to sexual relations, and where they will be taken seriously and respected if they say no.
I think (maybe wrongly) that you confuse “enjoying yourself in bed and maybe playing roles” with male sexual aggression. What people of any age mutually enjoy sexually has nothing to do with sexism or oppression, but this is very different from a society that is largely based on sex roles: Male = aggressive; breadwinner; sexually active – Female = passive; dependant[sic]; sexual receptacle for the Male. Neither men nor (especially women really fit into these moulds, and many are trying to break out: hence women’s liberation, gay liberation.

The ethic of male sexual aggression leads to, at worst, rape, at best, men using women – usually their wives – as objects of their sexual needs. The majority of heterosexual men are not really interested in learning how to make love to women, and even less in learning how to be made love to. Surely it is the sexist idea that sex equals penetration by the male that gives rise to a lot of the fears that people have about paedophilia. The “general public” see a helpless 4-year old being penetrated by an aggressive masculine male. Of course, no-one in his right mind would try to have intercourse with a 4-year old child. This doesn’t mean that a loving sexual relationship with a child of 4 is impossible. It just means that it would consist mainly of perhaps cuddling and stroking, and that the paedophile would be more likely to be female than male.

And it’s not only children who like cuddling and stroking. Most women enjoy it, and so probably would most men, but in our society it is considered unmanly to allow yourself to be cuddled. Sexism again!’ (p. 9)

[More stuff about general sexism. But opposing censorship of pornography]

‘Cambridge Conflict’, p. 10
University’s Vice-Chancellor, Sir Alan Cottrell, asking questions about advertising Paedophilia. Some Questions and Answers in student publications. SU president Charles Burch said to a local paper ‘I am quite impressed by the responsible way in which the PIE has written its booklet.’ (p. 10)

p. 11. Stories about slave-like working conditions for children in Bangkok. A Muslim child barred from school for declining to wear the school tie on religious grounds. Loss of Gay News blasphemy case. Story of a boy, Matthew Hall, who collected 2 ½ tons of cigarette packets towards a haemodialysis unit, a kidney machine. Report on schools and dealing with unmanageable pupils – pointing out that corporal punishment is on decline.

J. Pebble, ‘Child Porn (or Algebraic Paedophilia?): a heterosexual viewpoint’, pp. 12-13.
Arguing against those positions which oppose child porn on economic grounds or other arguments about exploitation, saying that these are just as rife in other areas – arms, drugs and advertising industries. Cites Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil).

p. 14. Has ad for NCCL.

5.jpeg

Also short piece about NUT sending a letter to Shirley Williams complaining about publication and distribution of “Blot” by National Union of School Students, which has articles on masturbation and promiscuity.

‘Castration Law in U.S.’, p. 15.
Mrs Joyce Lewis, in Maine, has proposed castration of both men and women for offences against children. Men would have nerves removed which enabled them to have erections; women would have ovaries removed, causing vagina to lose its elasticity, making intercourse painful. But may founder on grounds of ‘cruel and unusual punishment’.

David Grove, ‘The Oppression of Children’, p. 15
Mentioning child labour, floggings, etc. Citing Wordswhort:
“…trailing clouds of glory do we come
From God, who is our home,
Heaven lies about us in our infancy!
Shade of the prison house begin to close
Upon the growing boy… “

‘This fits in with other appropriate ideas, such as (a) this world is not reality, (B) we are really spirits, not bodies, (c) sexual activity is something which eventually sullies and degrades our angelic nature.
This type of romantic-idyllic thinking provides a very convenient background for the oppression of children. The truth is that the “growing boy” (or girl) is jolly lucky when he/she is at last old enough to escape from it.’ [etc]

Second part of ‘The Paedophiles’, pp. 16-18
Interview with Guillaume Sommer, sociologist in his 40s.
‘Boys start to become attractive to me around 12. If I hear a break in his voice, then it’s perfect. An intense pleasure. Acne. His look becomes suspicious. Then it comes to me. Then I feel a humility and a compassion. Something like, boy, it’s getting serious. Now it’ going to happen. It is also in the movement and the shape of such a boy. Why can’t I fall for a boyish looking girl? No, it’s the smell of the boy’s room. The bravuar [sic].
I always divide boys into angels and saucy little kids. I was, myself, as a child, one of the angels. A very good boy. Very inhibited. Never squabbled. Never showed my emotions. I came from a Christian home. You didn’t cry. I didn’t let myself get involved in paedophilia until I was in my 30’s. Around puberty I had violent loves for boys around 12. I could sometimes walk around in the shallow end of the swimming pool with a boy in my arms and the water washing over his chest. I never got an erection doing that because I didn’t connect the pleasure I got that way with sex.
In my twenties all that subsided. I also had feelings for girls. I was almost through school when my repressed paedophile feelings came back with a vengeance, toward a young cousin. I had an enormously erotic response to him. His parents let us go on a vacation together. For two weeks we shared a bed, and I didn’t dare touch him. That only increased his attraction for me. After that I came regularly every weekend to his house, but in a year and a half nothing happened that you could call sex. It was a passion: it played in my fantasies.
I know I once masturbated and that then the image of that boy haunted me. I was shocked. That is wrong, I thought: I must go to a psychiatrist. I went to a medical psychiatric office. A psychiatrist from the Rutger Society told me, “Yes, a wife with a penis, that’s what you want”. [etc] (p. 16)
[….]
‘I believe the war made a paedophile of me. It’s my Concentration Camp Syndrome. I think I belong to the most deeply hurt generation, the men in their 40’s who lived in camps as children, who were too little to understand it and weren’t able later to assimilate it. First I was with my mother in Soerabaja (Indonesia), in a woman’s camp. I had my mother all to myself because my father was already gone. When I turned 12 I had to go to a separate boy’s camp. We were taken there in a cattle truck. A man came between me and my mother. Why didn’t she attack the Japanese? Why didn’t she try to hold onto me? I must be brave. I mustn’t cry. My mother delivered me over to an aggressive man. That was not the first time.
I have nothing against women, but they are treacherous beings. Every time I form an attachment to a woman some man with aggressive impulses ploughs right through it. My father, for example, or that man who took out my tonsils, or the man who ran into me as I fled across the street to my mother. That pattern repeated itself, in the war in its most concentrated form.’
‘How do you connect that with paedophilia?@
‘During my analysis it came to the surface that somewhere a reversal of roles took place. As you yourself become a man you identify with the aggressive man, but, because I had an aversion to him, I projected myself into a young boy with whom I could form a relationship. A sort of atonement, a making amends with that boy who is really yourself. As if I was trying to say, ‘Young fellow, I’m really not so aggressive. I really care for you a lot. I care more for you than for a woman. I want to protect you from the things that happened tome when I was your age’.
I provide myself satisfaction with respect to myself as a 12-year-old boy. I have always fallen hard for 12-year-olds. I have also tried it with women, but that was more because society expected it of me. If you really enter into the advances, into an attachment with a woman, then there is an aggressive man in the scene. I see men, as perhaps you do, too, always as aggressors. Great convocations,. Crowds of men in grey suits. I become very frightened of them. [etc]
[….]
‘Winny [a boy of 12] is here every day. After dinner he always drops by. He has his own key to the house. He lives close by. I have known him for seven years. However, the love affair between us began just recently. It is a great pleasure. I sit in that chair and I put him on my lap, and with his arm about my neck we chat, about what school he will go to after he finishes secondary school, that sort of thing. I enjoy it intensely. I don’t baby him. I don’t speak in a different language. He has an attitude which makes me think he sees us as equals.’ (p. 17) (Guillaume is 45)
[….]
‘When a child comes here every evening for about six years and teaches me how to make love to him. I would be careful about qualifying children as different form adults. We live in an outspoken paedophile culture. The whole mythology of a child: the child is an angel, holy and innocent. Whoever doesn’t love children is an egotist. At the same time they are unruly creatures who must be quickly moulded into honest citizens. Sexual strivings in children – and by that I also mean body pleasure and free emotional expression – are forbidden. To me paedophilia is a product of a society in which sex is set apart. Paedophilia involves itself in forbidden things, and therefore it is forbidden. When an adult has a relationship with a small girl, isn’t people’s first reaction: ‘That penis is much too big.’ That comes from our fixation in sex and emotions upon sexual organs.’(p. 17)
[…]
‘What sort of image do you have now? What do you think I do with children? Rape them? Violate them? Murder them? I kiss them. They kiss me. I caress them. They caress me. When we want to we masturbate together, but sometimes that doesn’t happen in our relationship for weeks on end. Then a platonic contact prevails. No, I can’t find one scrap of evidence that this has undesirable consequences for the child.’ (p. 18)

‘Precious Metal-Hunter’, p. 19
’13-year old James Bolton, of King’s Lynn in Norfolk, is offering a free service with his metal detector to anyone who has lost items in the area. Now where did I leave that damnation cuff-link?’

Another item about a new article by Brongersma (p. 18)

‘Het’s Corner’, p. 19.
pics of pre-pubescent girls at school, aged probably 7-10. And some drawings, including one of a baby girl in nappies.

TOC, ‘How To Make Love… To Children’, p. 20

London Film-Makers’ Co-operative held an evening of films on Nov 10th. Purpose ‘To promote an educational discussion about film-making and the politics of sexuality’.
Films: Michel d’Hondt, Propaganda. – about children playing, with sexual overtones.
Mattyn Seip, Ijdijk (1963) – about an encounter between a man on a motorbike ‘and a boisterous youn blond boy’
Seip, Schermerhorn (1966) – about a continuing relationship between a man and a boy of about 15.

‘Feedback’, p. 21
Various letters from V.M., and members Nos. 275, 428, 426, 230, 39, 442.
No 426 suggesting that in some punk there are paedophile themes – lead singer of Buzzcocks was wearing a badge saying ‘I Like Boys’, and mentioning their 1978 hit ‘Ever Fallen in Love (With Someone You Shouldn’t ‘ve)?’. The Snifters, single ‘I Like Boys’. And band Raped (who changed their name to ‘Cuddly Toys’ after much criticism), had a single called ‘Pretty Paedophiles’.
No. 230 finding scenes with erotic overtones between children in Wuthering Heights and Romeo and Juliet.

Rev Olyobm ‘Once Below a Time’, poem in style of Dylan Thomas, p. 22.

Cliff, review of film ‘Nighthawks’, about comprehensive schoolteacher who prowls pub/club/disco scene by night, ‘only of peripheral interest to paedophiles’.

Crossword, p. 23

p. 24, back cover, two more pics of boys around 10-11.

Issue No. 14, Oct-Dec 1979

Cover ‘no longer alone!’. Picture of a Sri Lankan boy, maybe about 10.

p. 2. Picture of boy of about 11-12 sitting looking at the camera a bit provocatively.

‘The Continuing Crisis’, problems of money, p. 2
‘Light at the End of the Tunnel’, p. 2 – about some report recommending abolition of age of consent, report called Pregnant At School. Not much detail. Just saying that legality of sex acts should depend

‘First triumph for new conspirators’, p. 3
About Conspiracy Against Public Morals, a group formed to support PIE in its legal battle. CHE have affiliated to CAPM. A motion at a conference in Brighton for abolition of age of consent found widespread support, though no vote was taken. Give conspiracy defendants were remanded after a short hearing at Bow St magistrates court on Sep 4.

Conspiracy Against Public Morals, a broadly-based action group, has been formed to support PIE in its legal battle – and already the Conspiracy has scored its first success, by securing CHE’s affiliation to the campaign, at its annual conference in Brighton.

The Conspiracy, which aims to draw attention to the civil rights aspects of PIE’s case, and the unfairness of the law on ‘public morals’, is seeking support not only from gay organisations, but also from civil liberties and progressive legal groups, a wide range of sexual reformers, and those opposed to moral censorship.

The Conspiracy‘s Brighton triumph owed much to a speech by barrister Adrian Fulford, which Gay News declared to be the best made at the conference. The motion that followed it, calling for CHE’s affiliation to CAPM, was passed unopposed.

At the same conference, a motion in support of ending the age-of-consent laws also found widespread support. no official vote was taken – it was decided to leave the issue in the hands of the executive – but an informal show of hands indicated a 2 to 1 majority in favour of abolition.

In a brief hearing at Bow St magistrates court on September 4, the give conspiracy defendants were remanded on bail until November 22. […]’ (p. 3)

[This article provoked an investigation by the Mail, who wrote a major article about Fulford, now a High Court judge and an Adviser to the Queen: see Martin Beckford, ‘High Court judge and the child sex ring: Adviser to Queen was founder of paedophile support group to keep offenders out of jail’, Daily Mail, March 8th, 2014]

‘Roger Dodges Old Bailey Charge’, p. 3
Roger Moody, occasional contributor, acquitted of buggery against a 10-year old boy.

‘PIE Top 20’, pp. 4-5.
Selection of non-fiction books on and about paedophilia.

‘Norway – ‘It’s a knockout’ says Tom’, p. 5.
Went to conference with German, Swedish and Dutch delegates called ‘Amnesty for
Love and Attraction’ in Oslo, organised by Norwegian Paedophile Group, NAPF.
Much of it in English.
Papers by psychologists Thore Langfeldt of Norway, and Frits Bernard.
New international group to be set up, provisionally entitled Amnesty for Child Sexuality (ACS).
Tom went to see a Danish film called You Are Not Alone, about a school rebellion against sexual oppression imposed by teachers. ‘The main feature was a loving relationship between two boys, one about 15, the other 11 – and very much pre-pubertal. The erotic scenes between these two were astonishingly frank for a publicly licensed film, and at the same time beautifully tender.’

“Girl of Six” [under a picture of a girl of around 8-9 sitting in a chair]
‘You cuddled me and kissed me,
Mussed my hair, and smiled:
The woman in the child.’
Clark Ashton Smith (p. 5)

Mention of TOC’s forthcoming Paedophilia: The Radical Case (p. 5)

‘PIE no longer alone as major report says abolish age of consent’ – more about Pregnant At School, published by National Council for One Parent Families. Mostly to do with problem of juvenile pregnancy.
‘The sixty four thousand dollar question for any proposal to do away with a specific age of consent is what do you put in its place? How is the ability to consent to be determined? The report relies on criteria of physical and psychological maturity, with each case being considered on its merits. Thus a male would risk prosecution for having sex with a girl – or a mentally handicapped woman – of any age, if the female was found to be incapable of giving true consent. On the other hand, in theory at least, a physically well-developed (does this mean pubertal? – the report offers no definition) 10-year-old who plainly knew her own mind could consent.
Cases of alleged sexual assault, the report suggests, could be tried under existing laws ‘relating to criminal assault, sexual offences and the welfare of young people.’ In fact, although the report does not say so, some of these laws themselves presume that children under specified ages cannot consent, even to minor sexual activities, and would need to be amended in order for the report’s recommendations to be workable.’

Clipping from Capt Cook, Account of a Voyage Around the World (1769) on how a young man around six feet high ‘performed the rites of Venus (intercourse) with a little girl about 11 or 12 years of age’, in front of several people, and it seemed perfectly normal, with various women giving instructions to the girl how to perform her part.

Ad for Midwest Gay Academic Journal, p. 8

‘Chemical Castration makes a Comeback’, p. 9 – on how an Old Bailey judge forced this on a 53-year old caretaker who had a relationship with a boy of 13, if he wanted to avoid a stiff prison sentence. Castration has been banned in Holland.

Ralph, ‘The Child Protectors’, pp. 10-11
Teacher, then housemaster-tutor, eventually ‘in a well-known south east England public school’. Then returned to college and qualified in social work.
Looked after a nine-year old boy Phil, like a son.
Phil brought a 13-year old boy who was gay back. Ralph eventually received a four year jail sentence. Held back from suicide because of a letter from Phil, who was 14 when he returned. Heard about PIE whilst in prison. Then porn squad came to him. Phil ended up being boycotted by all his friends.

Toby, ‘Men with a Creche on Kids’, p. 15.
Just a book about organising a crèche, but feeling very much at ease around kids, in ways which sound sinister – quoting one man ‘My main feeling about the crèche is how important it is to have kids staying the night so that one really gets to know and be involved with them. If they go back to their parents in the evening (worse still if their stay is only for one afternoon) they never really commit themselves to being involved with you in the crèche and still want their parents at the slightest difficulties’.

Feedback, pp. 12-13
Usual sorts of things. Reply by Roger Moody to the piece by a woman member before.

‘World Contact Groups’, p. 14

‘Tu-Tuc-ing in to child-love’
‘How pleasant to see that there are gays who aren’t frightened of being associated with paedophilia, writes Serge, from Germany. At the Tuc Tuc café in Hamburg, the gay clientele have played hosts to an exhibition of paedophilc art – drawings, paintings and high-quality photos, together with poems on child-love.’ (p. 15)

Stop Press, p. 16
About NCCL publication First Rights – changes in criminal law as it affects children, abolition of corporal punishment, right for pupils and parents to see school records, and increased rights for young people in care.

Issue No. 15, Spring 1981

Cover, ‘Tom Jailed’, with lots of clippings.

‘Mid Trial Summary (PIE 4 Crown 0)’, p. 2.

Edward Brongersma, ‘The Dutch Experience’, p. 4

‘E.C. Appeal 1980’, p. 11. By Steven Adrian, Chairperson.
By time of appeal membership had dwindled to 150.

Article by Lesbian feminist Pat Califia, ‘Women against the New Puritans’, pp. 12-14
Arguing against Robin Morgan in particular, who had said that boy-love was a euphemism for rape (p. 12)

‘Morgan’s specious redefinition of rape could undo years of laborious public education. There is a clear difference between a consensual sex act which takes place between two people of different social status and a sexual assault (which can easily take place between people of equal social status). Her concept of rape implies that all kinds of relationships are inherently non-consensual – sex between men and women, between people of different racial or ethnic backgrounds, between people of different socioeconomic levels, between able-bodied and physically challenged people, and even between partners who differ greatly in size and strength.’ (p. 13)

[…]
‘WAVPM [Women Against Violence in Pornography and the Media]’s theory does not explain why an adult man would prefer boys (who have more social and physical power than girls) if he is motivated simply by a fear of powerful partners. It also does not explain why women have sexual relationships with girls. Yet this theory, which might explain heterosexual paedophilia, is being used to attack gay men.
What is missing from all this sanctimonious cant is the fact that some adults and young people care so deeply about each other that they are willing to risk long prison sentences, social stigma and violence to make contact with each other. Morgan is right: sexuality and emotions cannot be separated from each other without doing something horrible to the human spirit. But whatever makes her think that tenderness is not present in cross-generational relationships? The shrink establishment used to say that about lesbian relationships – that they were hopelessly neurotic because two women couldn’t really love each other.
I think it is interesting that so much of the new, ostensibly feminist morality dovetails with the old, Judeo-Christian morality. The American left is used to dealing with its own sectarian elements. The women’s movement is not. But we do have a conservative wing that is trying to turn feminism into a campaign against pornography, boy-lovers, sadomasochists, drag queens, transsexuals and prostitutes. It cannot be mere coincidence that so many groups of people who have already been outlawed, depersonalised and termed sick are being turned into symbols of women’s oppression.’ [etc] (pp. 13-14)

Also on p. 13:
‘When is a Paedophile not a Paedophile? When she is a Woman’
‘I find my daughter movingly, passionately beautiful: when I see her running naked, or coiled sleeping, I feel something which is not (I hope) lust, but alarmingly akin to it – a physical delight and recognition: and a desire to elicit from her a similar response.”
Thus Sara Maitland, feminist and writer, in a new book on motherhood (Why Children? Edited by Stephanie Dowrick and Sibyl Grundberg, Women’s Press, 1980).
And they say only men are paedophiles. . .’

‘Is the Far East going West’, pp. 15-16, 22. Mentions Tom Faret of Norwegian paedophile group NAFP.
[….]
‘Even so, conditions in the slum districts made a deep impression on us. Birth control instruction is now given in the schools, but it is stil usual for there to be 8 – 10 children in a family. Consequently, it is common for several children to sleep in the same bed, and it is perhaps because of this that the Filippinos have a completely different and more natural outlook on physical contact than we are used to. All this, of course, contributes to the fact that prostitution is pretty widespread. Every hotel boy and taxi driver do their best to offer their “chicks” to tourists. Even the poshest hotel have their “massage ladies” – it’s just that the price is higher the posher you live. Call boys right down to 12 years of age offer their girl friends or themselves quite openly to tourists in Manilla.
For those not interested in commercial sex we would recommend a trip to one of the smaller towns in the Philippines where there are fewer tourists. Here it is easier to come into contact with the local population, and we found it quite easy to build a really friendly relationship in a very short time. We went to a town called Bacolod on the island of Nigros and stayed there for eight days. In this comparatively short time we became known to a large number of people of all ages and both sexes. The standard of the hotels is good and the prices are very low. We often invited a large number of our friends to dinner at a good restaurant; everyone ate and drank as much as they wanted to, and the bill was seldom more than 50 Kr. (£5.00). A single room at our hotel was about the same price. That we had many guests in our room caused no eye-brow raising. We were invited to the homes of the boys we knew best and met their parents and family. Apparently, the parents thought it was a great honour that their sons had become so well-known to us. They told us how clever junior was at giving “massages”. . .
No minimum age for sex, nor any anti-homosexual laws, in Philippines.

‘Lolita on Stage’, p. 21. About Edward Albee’s stage adaptation.

Issue No. 16, Autumn 1981

Cover – more clippings about trial.

‘Hackney’s Decent People’, p. 2
The dirty tricks brigade were out in force during the Greater London Council’s recent elections. Under the heading – A Warning to the Decent People of North Hackney. Do You Want a Pervert to Represent You at County Hall? – they leafleted the London borough with a crude piece of trash directed against the Labour candidate, Gerry Ross.
Gerry was said to have a “shady and sinister past,” to be a “prolific writer and advertiser in . . . . Magpie,” to be a “close acquaintance of tom O’Carroll,” and “constant companion of Peter Bremner.”
‘Total fabrication’
Peter, a member of PIE’s Executive Committee comments, “It’s a total fabrication, of course; a primitive attempt by the lunatic fringe of the right wing to smear Mr. Ross.” Was Gerry a constant companion? “I don’t think I’ve ever met him in my life, though I’d like to. Gerry Ross is a well-known councillor in Hackney, and I respect his political views. But I can understand his anger at the leaflet. It claims, in one forged news cutting, that he was a defendant at the first PIE trial and a second so-called cutting comes from a fictitious newspaper. Who wouldn’t be angry about that?”
Increased majority.
The leaflet has been referred to the police for action on criminal libel. We are pleased to report that Gerry was elected councillor for North Hackney with a greatly increased majority.’ (p. 2)

‘Paradise Lost?’, pp. 3-4 (‘by a friend of PIE’)
On Sri Lanka.
[…]
With improved tourist facilities and cheap charter flights, more and more boy lovers have found their way to the island, spurred on in no small measure by its exposure as a BL paradise in such widely-circulated publications as SPARTACUS Gay Guide.
‘Predominantly now it was German tourists who came to find the boys for pleasure. And they came in their hundreds. Many acted with prudence, discretion and responsibility, but by no means all. It is a sad fact but it can be quite clearly understood that many of these sexually distraught boy lovers, with their frustrations bottled up inside them while in Europe, and with only one or two weeks to enjoy themselves, should fairly explode when they reached Sri Lanka and have sex and more sex with any boy who cared to come along (a tentative parallel could perhaps be drawn with sailors coming in on shore leave!) and, unaware of (or simply insensitive to) the cultural and economic gulf between them would shower money, cigarettes, watches and pocket calculators onto the boys. This easy money attracted more and more boys to follow tourists and to tout and pester them openly, and it seemed it would only be a matter of time before the authorities would have to act to prevent their precious tourists from this nuisance. Also, the blatant exhibitionism of the paedophile and gay tourist men and their boys offended the sensibilities of many local people. (Even I was guilty of that in the beginning, I’m Ashamed to admit.)

Well, it all began with the police arresting the boys and charging them with soliciting, or vagrancy. The topic began to be raised at international level in conferences on tourism. Remember that the western media had picked up on the item in Spartacus by John D. Stamford concerning the “rape of the third world”. In reply to one such question at a conference in Colombo, the Minister of State, Anandatissa deAlwis, tried to play it down with statements such as, “Why do tourists come here? Because there are beautiful girls and beautiful boys!” and “homosexuality existed here long before tourism”. However, his heroic stand was short-lived.’ (p. 3)
[…..]
Tim Bond, c. 34, from Christian children’s welfare organisation, Terre des Hommes came with a copy of Spartacus Gay Guide. Then wrote a report in which he condemned boy prostitution.
‘By April the local press was beginning to quote that most illustrious of all newspapers(!), the News of the World, by merely repeating, with no first hand knowledge of the facts, the fetid headlines and verbiage. By early May they caught onto another NOTW slant: “PIE’S DIRTY EYE ON LANKA” proclaimed the WEEKEND newspaper; “HAVEN OF SIN” said CHIC on page 3 in two-inch block caps. In earlier months, the local papers had referred to European paeds honestly as “coming here to satisfy their sexual needs” (as opposed to the more British perverted lusts). I could read no real hostility between the lines. But now, in imitation of the British rags, sexual pleasure was being equated with evil and sin. The NOTW’s suggestion that PIE might have connections with the Mafia (Heaven forbid!) were given wide coverage in the press. Some of the NOTW’s other wild speculations were transcribed into fact by WEEKEND on May 10: “PIE is responsible for preparing hard core child porn films and distribution among members as well as assisting the membership to procure children for their activities. PIE is said to have been supplied with ‘snuff’ films, showing children sexually tortured to death, by the Mafia.” It made my stomach turn to read it. I am familiar enough with PIE to know that they would outright condemn any kind of sadism or violence against children. How can this be paedophilia – love of and for children? But with libellous and inflammatory statements such as these appearing in the national press, is it any wonder that all BL tourists would be treated with great suspicion?
Last year, a resident guest, known by most people as “Charles White” was brutally murdered in his home in Colombo. He was a boy lover and had many personal contacts around the world. WEEKEND, in referring to PIE, claims that the police in Colombo stumbled onto a link when they came across some letters in his home written in English and French to which he had replied about the possibilities of “perverted activity here”. Some of the letters were from Morocco, and it is alleged that some of his Moroccan contacts had connections with the Mafia and “international sex rings”. The report then admits that, in fact, no direct links with PIE were shown in the Colombo letters. [etc]

‘Gayle Rubin, ‘Sexual Politics: The New Right & The Sexual Fringe’, p. 5. Edited version of an article for The Leaping Lesbian

‘At a time when feminists are called lesbians, when homosexuals are portrayed as “child molesters”, and when “child molesters” are presented as the four horsemen of the apocalypse, it would seem suicidal to try to defend the more exotic sexual minorities.

I would like to argue the exact opposite. It has never been more imperative that the women’s and gay movements develop more sensitivity to the problems, humanity, and legitimate claims of stigmatised minorities. If not, we will be contributing to a sexual witch-hunt. The actions of the “pro-family” forces at Houston are only the most widely-publicised aspects of the current sexual reaction. A more subtle and insidious repression is occurring elsewhere. It is in the pattern of arrests as well as in the “results” of referenda. It is in the new laws to regulate pornography and sexual behaviour that have been speeding through legislative bodies. It is in the New Journalism of self-conceived sexual muck-raking.

Although the reaction is aimed at feminism and gay liberation, both the women’s and gay movements are relatively strong and enjoy some measure of popular support. Lovers of young people, and others, are easier targets. There has been a marked increase in the tempo of arrests for sex “offences”. Many people have lost jobs and face sentences ranging from minor to many years in prison. While feminists and garden-variety gays are not exactly secure, it has been the more legally-vulnerable, more stigmatised, and less easily-defended groups which have sustained the highest casualties.

The issue which exemplifies these trends most dramatically is that of sex between adults and young people. “Boy-love” seems to be for Anita Bryant what communism was to Joe McCarthy. Gay men are reluctant to defend paederasts for fear of being confused with them. Feminists are wary of the subject out of a concern to end the sexual abuse of young people, and out of an awareness of the ways in which social power infects intimate relationships, thus neither feminism nor gay liberation was prepared to respond when a national hysteria over the sex lives of the young developed in the months preceding the Miami vote.

The lack of sociological sophistication displayed by both the media and the police was unnerving. There was a lot of talk of “national conspiracies” to draft boys into white slavery. From such data as actually appeared, it could be deduced that the “conspiracy” consisted primarily of the kind of contacts through ads, letters, and word of mouth, which characterises virtually every sexual sub-culture in the country. The “national conspiracy” was no more than the rudimentary social organisation of a sexual sub-group. By such criteria, the personal ads in “The New York Review of Books” would constitute a national conspiracy.

The campaign may have increased public awareness over the real abuse and exploitation to which many young people are subjected, but the most visible and immediate results were considerable less salutory [sic]. The media campaign shared with the sex statutes the concept that sex in general, and homosexuality in particular, are inimical to the well-being of the young. By emphasising “protection” of the young and ignoring the rights of the young, the campaign undoubtedly set back the aspirations of youth liberation. Youth liberation has argued for some time that young people should have the right to have sex as well as not to have it, and with whom they choose. The statutory structure of the sex laws has been identified as oppressive and insulting to young people. A range of sexual activities are legally defined as “molestation”, regardless of the quality of the relationship or the amount of consent involved. A crackdown on statutory molestation is not the best way to defend the rights of youth.

The incipient political mobilisation of paedophiles has been another victim. Over the last few years there have been occasional articles in the gay press which claim that most relationships between men and boys are consensual, loving, and beneficial to the young people involved. It has been argued that such relationships are to be distinguished from abuse, just as rape is to be distinguished from love in other contexts. There are journals of paedophile liberation, out of print classics of boy-love are being reprinted. . .

The “kiddie porn” campaign made the position of this movement rather untenable, and it manipulate concern over the welfare of young people to rationalise new legal attacks upon sexuality. Politicians cannot afford to oppose much of the new legislation, but groups like ACLU have criticised many of the proposed laws for containing dangerous restrictions on civil liberties and freedom of expression.

The recent career of boy-love in the public mind should serve as an alert that the self-interests of the feminist and gay movements are linked to simple justice for stigmatised sexual minorities. Such groups have been mobilising in the margins of the sexual left for some time, but their presence can no longer be ignored nor their claims dismissed.

There are also other reasons why we should pay attention to stigmatised sexual expression. For the existence of political organisations for groups like paedophiles is a manifestation of a deeper change. An increase in sexual awareness is evident from the imagery of movies, music and advertising, and this imagery is now diversifying. There have been TV programmes with lesbians, gay men, trans-sexuals and prostitutes. Ads play upon semi-conscious fantasy, and new wave rock characteristically celebrates, among other things, sex offenders, transvestitism, and anal sex.

Some of this newer erotic imagery can be attributed to the reaction against feminism, as for instance the ads which suggest violence against women. But much of it represents a return of some of the diversity of human sexuality from the shadows to which it has been banished. This return of the repressed contains a lot of untamed energy, some of which is feeding the wave of sexual reaction we have witnessed in recent months. Thus far, it has been primarily the Right which has responded to this profusion of erotic form, but it would be a great loss to leave it to the reactionaries to orchestrate a societal response to this widening of sexual consciousness. The women’s movement has always been suspicious of sex, and for good reason, since sexuality is the locus through which women’s oppression is managed. But rational paranoia can easily become a form of erotophobia.

The sexual fringe is a scary place, and those who do not live there are advised that it is a dangerous place to visit. But the fringe is also a repository for various examples of sexual expression which have been rejected by society. Much of it is worth reclaiming, and there is so much to learn out on the fringe. Both the mobilisation of the sexual fringe, and the increasing politicisation of sexuality challenge feminism to develop a politics which can be pro-sex while remaining anti-sexist. (p. 5)

John Parratt (Warren Middleton), ‘As Much A Martyr as Wilde: An Account of the PIE Re-Trial and the Imprisonment of Tom O’Carroll’, pp. 6-8

‘By repeatedly narrowing the line of fire, these too, were clearly favourable to the prosecution and had the added effect of excising any possible mention of Sir Peter Hayman, Britain’s former High Commissioner to Canada who, under the pseudonym of ‘Henderson’, had been a member of PIE. Whether this was done by accident or design we shall probably never know.’ (p. 6)

Other names of PIE members
Cyril Hall
Michael Dagnall (former editor of Magpie)
D.B. had also been an editor of contact pages
And Trevor Wade, who had been acquitted.

Keith Hose
David Grove, former secretary

Peter Bremner, ‘Tom in Prison’, p. 8

Issue No. 17. Spring 1982

Peter Saxon, ‘PIE Goes to Paris’, p. 3.
On the paedophile movement in France – GRED (Groupe de Recherche pour une Enfance Differente)

‘International Cooperation’, p. 5
GRED keen to establish greater contact between paedophile groups in different countries.
Mentions that possibly paedophile groups will be represented at this year’s conference of ILIS (International Lesbian Sisterhood)

John Finnin, ‘Zambia – a first glimpse’
Picture of a young Zambian boy – maybe about 5-6.
[…]
‘Scores of children walk barefoot in the streets, the wiser ones selling cigarettes or local curios which, more than likely, have been stolen or come by illegally. Their features are ebony black with high cheekbones and a stratling smile with rows of pearly white teeth.’
[…]
‘Boys of all ages can be seen daily in the big cities holding hands and caressing one another openly. This has no sexual overtones, but is generally regarded as displaying affection, and is looked upon as healthy. At times one can see grown men displaying similar actions.
By the time they have reached puberty, boys in most parts of the bush must go through an initiation ceremony which involves circumcision. [etc]
[….]
‘Boys often have sex with each other. It is considered natural, and not unusual to see two youngsters masturbating each other quietly behind their hut, or at the side of a dirt track road deep in the bush. Boys often walk about with their hands in one another’s pockets. It is not too difficult to imagine that fathers sleep with their sons and older men with other boys.
Thank God that the paranoia nad hysteria of the western culture towards sex among the young and old alike has not yet reached Zambia.’

Editorial: ‘The Spartacus strategy’, pp. 7, 24
Spartacus is a gay soft porn company based in the Netherlands. Publish magazine, non-pornographic, PAN.
Suspicious towards PIE.

Jane Rule, ‘making ADULTS easier to seduce’, pp. 8, 19. Lesbian writer, born Plainfield, NJ, 1931.
‘As a society we are so fearful of sexual initiation we pretend that by ignoring it, it will not take place. What we really want is not to know when or how it odes. We no longer frighten our children with threats of insanity and death as results of masturbation. It is, instead, clumped with picking one’s nose, belching, farting – something not to be done in public, by implication not to be done by nice people at all – but we give our children enough privacy so that the guilty pleasure can be discovered and practised not only alone but in the company of other unsupervised children. Children caught may be shamed, the more sexually aggressive children ostracised, but it is not, as it used to be, a cause of brutal retribution.
[….]
If we viewed sex as a basic appetite normally satisfied and gradually cultivated, we would not need to keep our children isolated and in ignorance for so long, building in them what we have ourselves experienced: intense fear and desire which, so long uninstructed, produce dangerous stupidity. Of course we don’t want dangerously stupid adults initiating our children. Fear of that leaves the children to themselves, not out of our conviction that children are, in this matter, the best teachers, but by default. We have so little trust in what we have to teach that we not only abdicate our responsibility, but label criminal any adult who might attempt instruction.

There are adults who do sexually exploit, damage and kill children. It makes no more sense to deal with the question by taking them as the norm than it would to take rapists as the norm for heterosexual relationships between adults. To say that any sexual activity between adults and children is exploitative because of the superior size and power of the adult is really to acknowledge that, overall, relationships between children and adults are unequal. Why we feel more concerned over children’s sexual dependence than over their physical, emotional and intellectual dependence says more about us as sexual incompetents than as responsible adults. (p. 8)
[…]
We must also examine the motives of all interaction between adults and children – how much has ever been done “for their own good”, how much we simply reinforce our own values – before we are too purely suspicious of anything but disinterested altruism in adults who relate to children.

More important than judging the quality of other people’s experience and relationships is the exercise of our own memories. Certainly my own initiation came long before I was legally adult. Though a number of males around my own age offered to participate, a woman ten years my senior was “responsible”, at my invitation and encouragement. The only fault I find with that part of my sexual education was the limit her guilt and fear put on our pleasure, the heterosexual pressure even she felt required to put on me. What she did “for my own good” caused both of us pain. If I were to improve on that experience now, it would not be to protect children from adult seduction but to make adults easier to seduce, less burdened with fear or guilt, less defended by hypocrisy.

If we accepted sexual behaviour between children and adults, we would be far more able to protect our children from abuse and exploitation than we are now. They would be free to tell us, as they can about all kinds of other experiences, what is happening to them and to have our sympathy and support instead of our mute and mistrustful terror. There are a thousand specific questions, all hard to answer, but we can’t begin dealing with them until our basic attitude changes.

Children are sexual, and it is up to us to take responsibility for their real education. They have been exploited and betrayed long enough by our silence.’ (p. 19)

‘Tom: Attacked Three Times in Three Weeks While Under Protection’, p. 9

Roger Nash, ‘How NZ Truth Killed Gavin Mitchell’, pp. 10-11.

Piece on Brooke Shields and nude photos of her in the bath when she was 10 – a 1 000 000 dollar damages claim brought by actress and her mother against photographer Garry Gross, who took the photos in 1975 for a Playboy Press book Sugar and Spice.
Judge dismissed suggestions that pics were pornographic. P. 11.

Various other pieces. Big interview reprinted from Australian gay magazine CAMPAIGN, interview with 12-year old boy, pp. 16-19.


PIE – documentary evidence 2 – from Magpie 1-8 (trigger warning – contains disturbing material)

[NOTE OF WARNING: In absolutely no sense whatsoever does the printing of the below material constitute any type of endorsement; in fact the very reverse]

Many people have sought to suggest that PIE was a minor organisation of no particular significance. As promised in my previous post, I will write a proper extended post on the organisation and its history (and ideology) later; but as time is limited at the moment, I propose simply to copy without comment (comment will come in that later post) a series of writings from and some information about Magpie: The Journal of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of which seventeen issues were produced from March 1977 to Summer 1982. These should give an idea of what the organisation was saying quite openly, and should leave no doubt that it was far from harmless.

Issue No. 1, March 1977

‘‘Magpie aims to provide paedophiles with their own journal, and to further the understanding and acceptance of true love for children in today’s society.

Magpie does not promote or otherwise encourage unlawful acts, sexual or otherwise.

All opinions expressed are those of their respective authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editor, or of PIE.

Magpie welcomes critisism [sic], contributions, advice and comments from its readers.

Reprints from Magpie are welcomed, please credit your source.

Magpie is published each month by the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the national paedophile organisation and research group. Correspondence for the magazine should be addressed to the Editor, whilst all other communications should be addressed to the Secretary.

Our address is:-

PIE,
c/o Release,
1, Elgin Avenue, London, W9.’

‘Magpie is intended to provide members of PIE and their friends, with a regular up to date service of news about PIE and information about other matters of interest to paedophiles. Magpie will report the activities and decisions of the PIE Executive Committee, news of PIE local groups plus any other articles of letters of interest which may come to its notice.

‘Whilst I applaud the efforts of Warren Middleton in producing ‘Understanding Paedophilia’ and I congratulate the Editor of ‘Palaver’ on his latest production, with respect to both these people, I feel that news should be forthcoming on a regular basis. To this end, Magpie will be produced each month – provided that nothing untoward happens to the Editor to prevent this! To achieve regularity, Magpie will, I fear, have to be of somewhat simple appearance; I cannot hope to emulate the sophisticated layout and quality of the other two publications. However, I trust it will not be of too dull a content. ‘ (La Gazza Ladra, ‘What’s This’, p. 1)

‘On the 3rd of March, Tom O’Carroll gave a talk about paedophilia and PIE to the Winchester branch of CHE [Campaign for Homosexual Equality]. This was his third public speaking engagement; if he did as well on the first two occasions as he did this time, then he has impressed and enlightened many people. Certainly his audience were impressed and eve the most hostile questioner was won over by his performance . . Congratulations!’ (‘Secretary speaks to CHE’, p. 2)

‘Ideas, please’

You may remember that at the last AGM it was decided that we should invite one or more prominent people to become ‘Honorary Vice-President’ of PIE. A number of names have been put forward and some of these have been written to, although as yet no one has taken us up on our offer!

One of the people written to was Bryan Gould MP – chosen largely because of the speech he gave to the CHE [Campaign for Homosexual Equality] Conference in Southampton last year. Although he declined to accept, his reply is worth reporting. It reads:-

“Thank you for your letter and for your invitation to become an honorary Vice-President. I am afraid that I have so much on my plate at the moment that it would be unwise of me to take on any further responsibilities for the time being. I should be less than honest with you however if I were to give you the impression that lack of time is my only difficulty. As you say, yours is an unpopular cause, and whilst I have a good deal of sympathy for your objectives, I do not think it would be fair to my wife and family for me to take a public stand on it. They suffered somewhat as a result of my speech to CHE and while I am robust enough to take the comments, correspondence etc., my wife in particular reacts badly to it. I am sorry to have to send you such a disappointing reply.”

Now, if an MP, who depends upon votes and public good-will, can give us such a considerate reception, there must be someone, somewhere who would be prepared to help us in this way. Any ideas please? (p. 4)

Issue No. 2, March 1977

An article detailed a trip by outgoing chair Keith Hose to Holland:

‘At the end of last year I decided to take a holiday in Holland with a friend. This was not the first time I had been there, but unlike previous visits, I arranged to call on our friends in the Dutch paedophile movement. As a direct consequence I was left with a feeling of elation at the progress made in social and legal attitudes to paedophilia in Holland, and a desire to be part of what is going on there.

Unlike PIE, the Dutch paedophile organisation is not autonomous, and it is only part of a bigger organisation, the NVSH. The NVSH, so I was informed by Dr Bernard (an important member of the paedophile sub-group), was started some years ago to encourage contraception. Over the years the group took under its wing other sexual liberation causes, including the campaign for childrens’ sexual rights, and in 1971, paedophilia. Although the NVSH is an independent organisation with its own membership and democratic process, it has for the past few years been largely government financed. A popular organisation, it had over a quarter of a million members only a few years ago, it has a strong influence on public attitudes to sex.
[…]
‘More or less, there is a paedophile group in every major Dutch town, and in addition but separate, there are many more groups of the NVSH fighting for this liberation of childrens’ sexuality. Reading the leaflet I had picked up in the Den Haag paedophile group, I telephoned the contact number given – which I found to be the home telephone number of the Convener. Rudely, but without choice, I assumed he spoke English, and I asked if we could come to see him. Warmly he invited us into his home.

When we arrived there, we could hardly believe our eyes. For there above his door, in full view of the street, was a most outrageous paedophile poster. We had seen both this poster, and a poster of the childrens’ sexual rights sub-group before, but we did not expect to see either on display above the entrance to a paedophile’s home. Naturally, once inside, we asked our host if he had ever had any trouble with his neighbours concerning the poster, especially in view of the fact that his home was right next to a school. But no – he insisted that all his neighbours were very friendly.’ (‘pedofeely’, pp. 5-7 (all material here from p. 5))

There was a plug for an international conference on ‘Love and Attraction’ to be held at University College, Swansea, September 5th to 9th 1977, adverts for ‘Boy Love news’ from Germany (p. 7) a feature on what to do with arrested or having photographic material confiscated (‘Survival’, p. 8), reports on arrests (pp. 9-10) and a guide to world paedophile groups with contact addresses: Studiegroep Pedofilie, Belgium; Landelijke Werkgroep Pedofilie, Netherlands; Paedofil Gruppe, Denmark; NAPF (Pedofil Arbeidsgruppe), Norway; Paedophile group, Sweden; Schweizer Arbeitsgruppe Paedophilie (SAP), Switzerland; DSAP and DAP, West Germany; Rene Guyon Society, Childhood Sensuality Circle, (CSC), Hermes and Gay Pederast Liberation Front, all USA; and mentions of provincial groups in some of these countries as well.

Issue No. 3, May 1977

This contained the item about NCCL taking up the case of PIE, as mentioned in my other blog post, then had an article by Tom O’Carroll, ‘Of Chickens and Chicken Hawks’, looking at an article by an NBC journalist on boy prostitution, more ads and features as in issue 2, and then a reprint from Forum entiled ‘Child Foot Fetishist.

On the back page (p. 8) was a feature called ‘One Man’s Booklist’, the comments accompanying which I summarise as follows:

Chuck Selwyn, Andrea, sibling and father-daughter incest
Sherman Sands, Funky Faculty, female teacher seduces schoolchildren and teenage girls seduce principal. ‘ridiculously unreal’
Paul Roan, When Miss Warren Comes. Mostly lesbian, some hetero stuff between female teacher and pupils.
Paula Welch, Darling Daughter, ‘mother lets her lover have her minor daughter, much voyeurism, coprolalia as stimulant, etc.’
Paula Welch, Daddy’s Girls, incest, mother daughters father
Paula Welch, I Can’t Stop – similar to Funky Faculty
Denise Bryant, as told to Roger Blake, Mother and Daughter. Autobiographical documentary by divorced school teacher with 13 year old daughter.
Rina Marshal, as told to Dalton Edwards, Don’t Ever Stop. Autobiography of a nymphomaniac, including childhood experiences.
Four Way Incest, with intro and comments by Roger Blake. Documentary told by aunt, uncle, niece and nephew all involved with bisexual incest.
Wayne Gibson, as told to Dalton Edwards, The Oversexed American. Autobiography of male world traveller with many experiences with both young boys and girls.
Frank Sheffield, The Meat Rack. Male homosexual autobiography, exploits including many affairs with minor boys.
Incest Experiences, with intro and comments by John F Trimble. 9 case histories of adult-child incest.
Freaked Out, with intro and comments by Dalton Edwards. Like above, also paedophilia and child-child relationships.

Issue No. 4, June 1977

This issue contained procedural information about the organisation, and stories from Keith Hose, who had to go to New Scotland Yard, was asked about ‘a certain famous member of PAL’ and whether certain other people were PIE members (Hose apparently refused to divulge names), also about an Andre Thoren trying to blackmail a potential member of PIE, and the organisation being attacked by a Bournemouth woman, Christine Jolliffe, and how Tom O’Carroll had sought and gained much publicity for PIE (pp. 3-4)

There is an ad called ‘Girls for Boys’ School’, about a school for boys, Sexey’s School (sic), Lusty Hill, Burton, Somerset, taking 22 girl pupils in September, apparently quoted from The Times (p. 4).

Tom O’Carroll wrote a long item about the NCCL Gay Rights Conference and the issue of Chemical Castration, apparently ‘consented’ to by prisoners, but this was under duress (Tom O’Carroll, ‘NCCL Gay Rights Conference. Chemical Castration’, pp. 5, 7).

One letter asked where pictures could be processed safely, ‘Not pornography, just good natural pictures’ (p. 6). Fears were given how the murder of a 4-year old girl could be linked to paedophiles, and there was a report about a case in the Appeal Court involving three men who had had sexual intercourse with a 14-year old girl (pp. 6-7).

A ‘Non-Fiction Book List’ mentioned various PIE publications, and also Kinsey, aDutch book Sex mit Kinderen, Parker Rossman, Sexual Experience between Men & Boys, Timothy d’Arch Smith, Love in Earnest; Brian Reade, Sexual Heretics; J.Z. Eglinton, Greek Love; Thorkil Vanggaard, Phallos; and Paul Gebhard et al, Sex Offenders.

Issue 5, July 1977

The cover of this issue had a picture of a young boy (maybe around 8) in shorts on the cover.

There were reviews of films Walkabout, Fireworks/The Queen/Children, Satyricon, Fear Personified, Run Rabbit Run, and Child Art on p. 2, all dissected for paedophile elements. Then the first article in this journal appeared by Father Michael Ingram (who was later convicted of multiple counts of sexual abuse during the time when these articles were written). I will copy a large section of this:

‘‘There seem to be few things that arouse the horror, anger and sometimes hysteria of society than the thoughts of children having sexual activity, especially with adults. Society’s attitudes are mirrored in prisons where those found guilty of offences against children need to be protected from other prisoners. But a cold examination of the facts indicates that much of this anger seems to be irrational and groundless, and that the reaction to discovery of the act can do more damage than the act itself.

Take the case of an eleven year boy whose parents overheard him tell his brother about a man who was ‘having sex’ with him. There was a family scene, mother crying, father packing up and down and vowing he could ‘kill the bastard’. The police were called in. the boy was interrogated over and over again by both parents and police. The boy was taken to the police station where he was told to lower this trousers. A doctor examined his penis, retracting the foreskin. The boy was made to bend down while a doctor put a lubricated rubber sheath on his finger which he inserted into the boy’s rectum. The man was charged, denied it and the boy was examined by the magistrates. The man was remanded on bail, so in order to prevent the boy meeting him again, he was sent to stay with relatives in Ireland until the trial three months later.

What seems to have happened was that the boy was rather deprived of affection from his parents who were cold and undemonstrative. He had often allowed the man to cuddle him, and this sometimes led to the man feeling him inside his trousers. If one can make a strong attempt to mask the disgust this might evoke, and consider the possible damage done to the boy by being starved of love at home, by enduring the anger, fearful interrogation, and most of all by submitting to the formal repetition by the doctor of the acts which were causing all the trouble, one can see that the offender was the last one from who the boy needed protection. As a psychiatrist involved in the case put it, “If he hadn’t been buggered by the man, he certainly had been by the doctor”.

The offender in this case was sent to prison, where he pretended to be there for larceny. He was put in the ordinary wing. His secret was discovered and he was beaten up, suffering severe injuries. He lost his job, was cut off from his family and his voluntary social work. He had done a great deal for his local community, especially for the children, and all this was forgotten. At the age of twenty-six he was a ruined man because he showed too much love for a little boy.

Nine years later the boy is now twenty, cold, repressed, afraid of sex, isolated and friendless, depending on anti-depressants to make his moods tolerable.

In the last nine years there have been considerable changes in police and legal practice, and nowadays the needs of the child are more taken into consideration. My experience is that parents also are less inclined now to ‘bring in the law’, but even so, much is left to be desired. Even recently, a little girl who was making allegations against a man was visited at her home by two uniformed police officers, when it had been explicitly promised that only plainclothes officers would be sent. But meaningful changes in the law will only be accomplished once public opinion has been changed and public fears allayed. Our society still thinks that children have no sexual feelings unless unnaturally aroused by depraved persons. We still think of adults whose love for children sometimes has sexual expression as being unspeakably degenerate and corrupting. We still reflect the legal idea that a young person under sixteen can not meaningfully consent to a sexual act, and we still think that children can be persuaded by adults to commit sexual acts against their will.

The most important thing it seems to me, and with this all readers would agree, is that our first duty is to protect a child from harm. What is controversial is the method by which we achieve this.

In the first place we need to recognise that children do have sexual feelings, and these feeling like all other childrens’ feelings are expressed in play. A lot of children will play at ‘peeping’ games, stripping games, competitions to see who can pee the highest and furthest, ‘knackering’ (boys grabbing or punching each others genitals), and even exploratory sexual acts. They are often interested in adults’ bodies and, from the age of about nine or ten, in adult’s sex lives. They are quite capable of indulging in sex games with willing adults, and even of provoking or initiating them.

In a study I have made of 57 boys who were ‘indecently assaulted’, 8 of them resisted the assault, which was discontinued for that reason. The rest appear to have been willing for it to take place. Thirty-eight of the boys returned to the same man for more, and three were promiscuous and made money by it. Eleven of the seventeen men involved in the study claimed that most of the children, if not actually initiating the activity, were at least seductive. In most of the cases, the sexual act was part of a more extensive demonstration of affection. The child appeared to need a lot of love.

In twenty out of the 50 families from which the boys came, the boys admitted to being frightened by their fathers, who were violent and/or given to drink. In 17 cases the father was absent due to death, divorce, or unmarried mother. In nine families the father was clearly dominated by his wife, was of weak character, and took no notice of his growing boys.

Nine of the boys felt rejected by their mothers, two mothers had deserted the family, 29 were suffering from depression and anxiety severe enough to need medical treatment. Only six boys had satisfactory relations with their fathers, and only eight with their mothers, (and this 8 included the six who had good relations with their fathers). All eight of these children rejected the act, told their parents about it, and, characteristically, the parents did not get upset, did not call in the police, and the only thing they did was to ask the present author to discuss the matter with their children.

All the acts in the above study are homosexual acts. Being a man, girls are not usually referred to me in cases like this. Statistically, heterosexual acts are much commoner (about three to one) and my findings may not be typical. But they do closely resemble results produced by other studies. They do not go to show that all children who get involved in sexual activity are disturbed and come from bad family backgrounds, but that such children do tend to be the ones who get involved because their need for affection is matched by the willingness of the man to give it.

But this has very unfortunate repercussions. There are many children in need of affection, for example, in children’s homes, and it is no longer possible for caring adults to show this affection in any meaningful way except for feeding and providing material goods. A man I once interviewed had been an assistant in a childrens’ home for seventeen years. He was adored by the children, they sat on his knee for stories, he kissed them goodnight, cuddled them whenever they seemed to need it. It was often suspected that he ‘went too far’ but there was no evidence, and one or two people in fact deliberately closed their eyes to the possibility. But he did not get promoted, and when he applied for other posts he never got them, in spite of the fact that he was such a wonderful assistant. Finally, his staff was joined by a middle-aged single woman who went on a witch-hunt once her nose started twitching, and evidence was unearthed that sent the man to prison for three years. The children in the home were left desolate and now, four years later in that same home, staff do not touch the children.

There is no evidence that sexual contacts with adults do any damage, psychological or moral, to the children any more than the ‘rude games’ that many of them play. There is considerable evidence that parental distress and police intervention do cause a great deal of harm, and there is overwhelming evidence that deprivation, especially deprivation of physical love, damages personalities and is a significant factor in the development of sexual disorders in later life.

I do not think that children should be encouraged to have sexual relations with adults, and I do think that problems could arise from them, given the unequal needs of the partners, but all the evidence I can muster indicates that children will take from a relationship what they need, and will grow out of it when they are ready. Of the 57 cases I studied, thirteen rejected the man and the act shortly afterwards, fifteen rejected it after some lapse of time, and of the rest I have no information. Only the 3 promiscuous ones stated that they did not regret the act, and they would do it again given the chance. All three have now grown up and are practising homosexuals.

What seems to be necessary, therefore, is an effort to inform the general public about the groundlessness of their fears, of the need for calm when an act is discovered, and a sense of balance about a child’s needs and vulnerability. Children need to be brought up in an atmosphere in which these topics can be discussed as calmly as school or play. In one family a boy announced that someone had ‘played with his willy’. His mother said “Did he, dear? Are you going to see him again?” “No. I don’t think so.” “I suppose you are right, it is better not to play at sexy things until you understand them when you get older.” Another mother said, “Oh, did he? Well I don’t think it is wise for you to go on seeing him at his house. If you want to see him again, invite him round for tea.” This was done. The matter was discussed with the man and the boy, and the mother and father said they felt their son was too young for such things. The mother of an older boy (aged 13) said, “Well I think you ought to ask advice about this. You like Father Ingram a lot, why don’t you go and ask him what he thinks? He understands these things better than your father and I.”

These reactions all seem to be healthy, but are only three compared with a whole lot of hysteria and rage that I have been called in to calm, usually too late to prevent the damage.

It is probably necessary to have a minimum age of consent, but I suggest it would be better to be flexible and prohibit sexual acts whenever there is an age difference of say, two or three years, when one partner is below the given age. This would be enough to protect children from emotional exploitation. Prosecutions should only be initiated if there has been violence or undue pressure, or indications of other forms of moral corruption, and so on. Medical examinations should be prohibited except when the child complains of pain, or when damage is suspected. Interviews should always be done by plainclothes officers in the presence of the parents when the children are very young, but with older children, the choice of speaking in the presence or absence of the parents should be left to the child. I have often found that older children prefer not to discuss things with their parents. But above all, society should not cut off from children the contribution that can be made to their welfare by those whose only fault is that their love leads to acts that society fears without reasonable cause, and whose importance diminishes in comparison with what their love can do.’ (The Rev Fr Michael Ingram, O.P. ‘”Filthy”’, pp. 5-6, reprinted from Libertarian Education)

Tom O’ Carroll would write underneath:

‘To the weary traveller, the Priory of the Holy Cross, Leicester is a haven of warmth and welcome; in the best traditions of the mediaeval Church, the wayfarer is plied with good, wholesome victuals and no shortage of drink either – and one’s host, the good Father Michael, is the very embodiment of that spirit of hospitality: convivial, affable, a man of charm and engaging conversation. All in all, a stout fellow!

I happen to believe that Michael Ingram, of the Dominican Order of preachers, represents the best of the 20th century Church too, though there are doubtless those in the Vatican who do not agree, for he has ‘advanced’ views on such subjects as birth control and abortion, and to my ignorant mind at any rate (untutored in theology, and therefore a suspect guide), his views on the Meaning of Sin and the Authority of the Church come exciting near to – dare I say it – heresy!

Established as a heavyweight intellectual – he was recently invited to deliver a series of lectures on sexual ethics to Harvard University no less – he nonetheless has work as a child counsellor in Leicester which keeps his feet firmly on the ground.

This work with children began when he studied child counselling as an associate student with the Tavistock Clinic, followed by work among deprived children in Camden, and later Leicester.

It has to be in this context that he has made an extensive, and largely positive, study of paedophile relationships between men and boys. The outcome of this study is to be a paper presented at the forthcoming Swansea Conference of the British Psychological Society on “Love and Attraction.”’ (p. 6)

A columnist by the name of Ray Halliwell wrote the following:

‘When I joined PIE some ten months ago, I wasn’t sure I had done the right thing. It wouldn’t have surprised me in the least to find half of Fleet Street on my doorstep one morning. If it had happened, I would have had a heart attack. However, since attending a PIE meeting last September, I made a decision – to ‘come out’.

At home I worked out a plan of action. Leave a copy of “Understanding Paedophilia” on the sideboard. A subtle hint here and there. Of course everyone thought I was going a bit crazy or something. Then it happened – one of my friends got the message – I had something to tell him. “I’m sexually attracted to boys,” I said. “Oh,” he replied. That was just about the last thing I had expected. The truth was that my real friends had long suspected that I was homosexual, and they were more interested in the price of a pint than the fact that I was paedophile. So far so good. Next thing I knew was when a spanner got thrown in the works when I was offered a job in a new town and accepted.

Now came the big problem. How to tell the new people? You can’t very well walk into the local and say, “hello, I’ve just moved here – nice weather – I’m paedophile, you know.” So I thought I’d wait until someone asked before I told thema bout myself. Of course no one did and I’ve now got myself into a situation where people assume that I am heterosexual. So I am starting all over again. Maybe I could try wearing a PIE tee-shirt or next time I get the urge to rush up Nelson’s Column and shout “I like boys, so what!” I should do it. Who knows, maybe I can make a success of this coming out thing yet.

Finally, on the off-chance that “horrified of Halifax” or “Disgusted of Dewsbury” or some neurotic gossip columnist is reading this piece, I have a word of advice for them.

I’ve no desire to change my sexual orientation and I am happy the way I am, thank you very much. There will always be people like me in the world to brighten up your day – that’s nature. If this fact disturbs you, I can recommend a very good psychiatrist.’ (Halliwell, ‘Coming Out’, p. 7).

There was a further Non-Fiction book list, and also a poem entitled ‘Children. North-South-East-West’ (p. 8)

Issues No. 6, August 1977

This had on the cover a picture of a young boy with their hands over their face. Importantly, this issue also featured an advert for a ‘Seminar on Paedophilia’ by the Dutch Dr Edward Brongersma, who would become closely involved with the paedophile movement. This was to take place on Thursday, 1/9/77 at Shaftesbury Hotel (p. 2).

In a long review of the film ‘Les Amitiés Particulières’ by Keith Hose (pp. 4-5), he wrote

‘The film portrays the younger boy as partly unrealistic, idealised character; a paederastic fantasy. He is beautiful, camply seductive, confident, cultured and mature. The book however, is not immune from this either, but whether one would call this a criticism, I am not sure. I still disagree with those who would say that a twelve year old boy can never have this degree of sophistication.’

Then the following was written by a Cyril Halley, entitled ‘Lament’, writing about the loss of a loved one who he will never see again:

‘The scene I shall ever remember was her languid expression, her listless gaze, as she went away, out of the room and out of my life.’
[….]
‘I shall never know either, how deeply Julie loved me, or indeed if she even loved me at all. We never discussed the question of love although I had said quite a few times when she needed consoling, “I love you, Julie, you know that.” She allowed me to kiss her on occasions and seemed to like a fuss made of her. She let me cuddle her and she was mildly jealous if I showed affection to another; but for all that I shall go through life continually thinking that my undying love was unrequited.
It was on Saturdays that Julie used to come and see me. She arrived at about 8pm and left at eleven. These three hours per week are imprinted on my memory. The lateness of the hour often made her sleepy towards the end of her stay, and then she slept in my arms, showing a loving trust that makes all else in life superfluous. The tender memories flooding back as I write this narrative are filling me with a sense of hopeless frustration.’
[….]
Her vision is before me now, holding the palm of her hand to her mouth to suppress excitement or uttering, as only she had not quite heard what was said to her.’
[…]
You see dear reader, my beloved Julie is only eight years old.’

An piece of fiction by Charles Napier, entitled ‘Spy-dophilia’, was a thriller involving a gay Los Angeles private eye, David Brandstetter (pp. 6-7).

On the back cover was a map of local groups, claiming 65 members in the London area, and many others all over the country (p. 8).

Issue 7, September 1977

This was the first properly typeset issue. There was a message on p. 2 from the convenor of the French group of PIE:

‘La première reunion du groupe francais a eu lieu recemment. Les autres reunions auront lieu chaque premier samedi du mois chez le member No. 234. Les personnes interessees de se joinder a nous sont pirees de prendre contact avec le member No. 234 en ecrivant a l’adresse de P.I.E. a Londres.’

In ‘Notes & News’ (p. 2) there was reference to a long article by Tom Crabtree in The Guardian. Then there were reports of how the ‘Love and Attraction’ conference at Swansea was moved, and how NUPE forced the conference organisers to eject Tom O’Carroll, who was also physically attacked. Also about how there was apparently much press hysteria, death threats, sackings, and a near riot in central London. After a meeting was planned at Conway Hall on Sep 19th, about 120 people, PIE members and press, went, ‘braving a barrage of abuse, blows and missiles rained on them by a crowd outside, at least partly organised by the National Front’ (p. 2).

On p. 3, there were letters from a John Page (who talked about living in ‘an age of utter barbarism which has been created largely by Christianity and Judaism combined’), an A. Paedophile (which included ‘Let us not equate “paedophile” with “child molester”. True paedophiles love all people, and especially the youngsters.’; and ‘I contribute to the NSPCC’) and a Nicholas J. Ferguson, London (who wrote ’One of the self-made ‘rules’ of responsible paedophiles is not to ‘share their young friends around’’. So no pooling of photographs, collections of diaries or letters) (p. 3).

Charles Napier wrote a poem about the now almost-mythological figure of Tom O’Connor (p. 4). And an article by Dr. Frits Bernard, who would become a regular contributor, referred to as ‘Psychiatrist, Sociologist, Writer’, said the following about the age of consent, mentioning that in some countries it is at age 12:

‘Some take as the criterion for drawing the boundary line the onset of puberty, the first menstruation or the first ejaculation. In my opinion this is a biologically acceptable criterion (it is a fact that can be observed) but represents no psychologically valid attitude. The affection of a girl or of a boy for a man or woman before reaching puberty and after passing this boundary, should be no different in terms of experience. Orgasms without ejaculation can give the same gratification as with ejaculation.’ (Dr. Frits Bernard, Psychiatrist, Sociologist, Writer, ‘Paedophilia. What are we talking about?’, p. 5).

The following letter appeared on the same page:

‘Dear Sir,

I was interested to read in MAGPIE No. 5 that you had received a copy of the Spartacus Holiday Help portfolio on paedophiles and their vacations. I wrote to the address you gave for further information, enclosing an international reply coupon, but have received no reply – – this was more than five weeks ago. I suppose it wouldn’t be possible to let me know what information was given on the two countries coming out top of the list, i.e., Sri Lanka and the Philippines? I am sure that this would be of interest to other members as well.

Your sincerely,
157

Brighton,
24 Aug. 77’

An article by a Robert Mitchell, on the search for the murderer of a young boy in West Yorkshire, argued against the Chief Constable’s position that all paedophile relationships should be eliminated because of this case. ‘Lots of friendly and loving people will be humiliated and tortured – kicked and punched in police cells; imprisoned for many years in order to “mark society’s strong disapproval”; in prison bashed and gang-raped, and driven to attempt suicide; and upon release have to live dogged by a criminal record’). Another by Ray Halliwell was about taking out a subscription to ‘Boys International’ and not feeling he had to hide it (p. 7).


Issue No. 8. No date given.

The cover featured a picture of a boy with something like a coke bottle, in swimming trunks.

‘Spartacus Guide’
In the last issue of MAGPIE one of our readers asked us to reprint the information given in the Spartacus Holiday Guide for Paedophiles, and this we agreed to do.
However, in the light of what we now know about Spartacus, we have reluctantly decided that it would not be helpful to our members and readers for us to do such a reprint, the information given being at best superficial and at worst inaccurate.’ (p. 2)

Tom O’Carroll, Review of film The Bad News Bears, dir. Michael Ritchie (1976) (p. 2)

[…]
‘There I was, at prime time, a mid-evening performance in the opening west end week, and the place was deserted except for a few scattered Paedophiles (don’t ask me how I know!) who wanted to see how much Tatum had grown up since !”Paper Moon” and to have a good ogle (and what’s wrong with that?) at the baby Bears of the little league baseball team.’
[…]
‘For me, the star performer wasn’t Matthau or O’Neal, although Tatum still looks pre-bra enough to be physically interesting. No, the palm must go to a little guy whose name I can’t remember – He is supposed to be a symbolic non-entity in the film, so I guess that fits – who was not only a lousy player at the start of the story, but he stayed that way. He was always the one left on the bench, the substitute, the nothing guy. When the other kids picked on him he hadn’t the guts to fight back, and the most ambition his feeble spirit could muster was the thought of being associated with the winning team’
[….]

A letter from a Charles Gerrivoenski (of whom more in a later issue) praised Frits Bernard’s article, and talked about warning a 12-year old boy not to tell his parents about their sexual relationship, mentioning a ‘clash of loyalty’.

‘Read All About It’, p. 3.
Mentioning articles in Guardian, 12/9/77 (half page article based on interview with Keith Hose), Community Care, 28/9/77 (“PIE is not getting a fair hearing”), 12/10/77 (reader’s letter), 19/10/77 (four pages on PIE and its aim, based on interview with Tom), new Society 8/9/77 (Marginal Note on PIE’s attempts to hold an open meeting), 6/10/77, “TV parents” – about children’s TV preferences; Peace news 23/9/77 (PIE in the sky – a report of NUSS support of PIE); Time Out 9/9/77 (“Untouchable subject” – on PIE and its aims); The Sun 10/9/77 (“Priest in Sex Row Hits Back”); Spectator 1/10/77 (“Suffer the little children”), Medical News 21/9/77 (Article by Eric Trimmer based on findings and fumings at Swansea Conference)
Quote from the end of the last:
‘Up in the Press room at the university on the day I met a very charming and lively little boy who was passing his time making paper aeroplanes out of abstracts of delegates papers. I asked his father, one of the Department of Psychology, if he was hiding him up there in case Tom O’Carroll was about. “Good God no Man” he replied in an accent straight out of Milk Wood, “he’s such a little horror at home I’m hoping they do meet up. Might cure both of them”. (p. 3)

Article by Member 136, ‘As I see it…’, p. 4:

Talks about members being adherents of the Kid’s Lib.
‘I believe P.I.E. would be better employed in devoting its major efforts to radically reducing the penalties imposed on Paedophiles and also to reducing to a minimum the distress inflicted on the child in the case by seeking to change the investigative and court procedures. [….]
Recent articles in Magpie have suggested that contributors are vaguely but grudgingly aware of the existence of parents but would prefer to dismiss their right to any claim upon their children. I think this is a stupid view to take and one that does our case no good. Perhaps this article will re-dress the balance a little and perhaps give rise to some constructive controversy.’ (p. 4)

Michael Ingram, ‘Laws of Consent’, pp. 5-6
This proposed equalising homo- and hetero-sexual ages of consent. ‘In the discussion which follows you might like to express your opinions as to whether 16 is the best age.’ (p. 5)
The duty of the law to protect the simple from exploitation, so Ingram suggested that the age of consent might be flexible, ‘and that parents who feel that their daughter under the age of, say, 18 is being exploited should be able to invoke the law by some means to prevent it.’
Laws should apply equally to men and women.
Either laws should apply to children, and contraceptive information only be given to parents, and doctors forbidden to prescribe pill to under-age girls, or laws should not apply at all to under-age children.
‘It might be possible to devise a system whereby the consent laws become more flexible, and prohibit intercourse, or sexual activity between persons who [sic] age difference is greater than two or three years when one of them is below the given age of consent.’ (all p. 5)

An article by Keith Spence, ‘Reflections in a square eye’, p. 8, portrayed paedophiles somehow transgressing social norms, talking about:

‘the fundamental honesty of Paedophile relationships, which can find their natural course without constantly needing to conform to an established stereotype.
So – let conventional people hide behind their rules and standards. Keep your images. I’m happier without a reflection, thanks. Anyone know of a nice, succulent jugular?’

P. 9 feature a picture of a young boy, maybe about 4-5.

On pp. 10-11, there was the first of what would become a regular crossword, with all clues to do with paedophilia. Here are some examples of the clues:

Across clues 20. ‘How your boy must have felt when his dad found out his first letter traded south. (3).
24. The older boy’s penis may be, but still he yearns! (6)
38. Gay little Leslie sings both ways, to a point! (7)
47. Morocco would be no place for a boy-lover who suffers from it! (10)
(p. 10)
Down clues, p. 11
E.g. 4. Balls to the doctor! All boys have them set up twice. (6)
12. Sounds like the boy to sustain morally, but you can’t make love to this one! (4)
37. An Irish kid who is apt to get screwed up. (3)

A map on the back showed 9 branches in Australia and one in New Zealand.

Later issues featured even more disturbing material – I will post this tomorrow.