Four months seems like a lifetime away in the world of politics and more so for the nation’s Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse which has yet to get started, but it was only four months ago that our Prime Minister insinuated that a Westminster paedophile ring was nothing more than a conspiracy theory.
You have to wonder at the motivation for that. One can understand taking a view on something if you’re holding definitive proof that your statement is accurate. But in this exchange, which saw David Cameron telling a survivor in person that he was essentially lying about there being a VIP paedophile ring by virtue of the fact that no cover up for such a ring has yet been established, it’s not hard to imagine that the Prime Minister’s knee jerk response could have been fuelled by political ambition. Especially if there’s a chance that a ring might include Conservative politicians. After all, there are contradictions in the corridors of power on this issue, not least of all Theresa May’s own admission that there may have been a cover up in the investigation into the ring.
That no one has yet thought to connect the now infamous Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) with the possibility of a thriving Westminster-based paedophile ring seems like a rather large oversight, both by government and the national media. But the more you delve into this sordid movement, the more obvious the connection becomes.
PIE was established in 1974, by Michael Hanson, and although he was based in Scotland, he found himself having to move the group down to England because the vast majority of those interested in joining were there. So, in 1975, PIE relocated to London, its dubious aim, “to alleviate [the] suffering of many adults and children” by campaigning to abolish the age of consent thus legalising sex between adults and children.
The movement was taken seriously and no one at the time questioned its agenda. It attracted high-profile individuals who believed that PIE was a liberated and forward-thinking organisation. Its supporters included Harriet Harman, and one of its members was the now deceased Sir Peter Hayman – the man who has since been identified as the subject of a newly found document relating to child abuse. A document which the government refused to release, and which refers to “unnatural sexual proclivities”.
Hayman was never prosecuted, some say due to his connections with MI6. This failure was widely documented and later established as a cover up. Although PIE was shut down in 1984, dogged by several controversial incidents including allegations of rape relating to PIE’s treasurer, Charles Napier and other members being charged with child pornography related offences, and incitement to promote indecent acts between adults and children, very little is known about what happened to its members after the group’s dissolution.
Fast forward to 1993, and more news items on the suspicious deaths of whistleblowers who claimed to have been victims of a high-profile paedophile ring in the 1970’s and the 1980s. These tragic stories are, sadly, followed by yet more controversy, as claims of a complex web of child abuse emerges, and appears to involve yet more politicians and peers during the ’70s and 80’s. That these events within this time period match exactly with PIE’s own timeline, could be more than just a passing coincidence.
News of children being murdered during paedophillic orgies involving senior politicians have also surfaced in the last few months. But this time, the allegations stem from the 1990’s – shortly after PIE was disbanded, and its members found themselves without a spiritual home. Did they seek solace in their perversions under a different organisation, or did they simply gather in informal groups and carry out despicable acts much like this one? It is hard to believe that paedophiles would simply vanish into thin air, just as their monstrous alma mater did.
So where did they go, and whom are they abusing now? These are questions which our Prime Minister may well know the answer to, and which may be set at least in part, inside the newly discovered historical files on child abuse, which the Cabinet Office is holding so close to its chest. At the heart of the request to reveal just the titles of these files, lies a family whose son went missing in 1979 – at the time PIE was still very much alive and kicking. Martin Allen’s family have been left devastated by the government’s refusal to share the names of these files.
The government has promised to release the documents to the relevant inquiries, but can we trust our officials to hand those materials over in the same condition they found them? That is the concern for many, who fear that the Prime Minister may be seeking to avoid revelations about politicians being aired in public and which may damage his party’s chances of re-election.
And that is why the nation’s Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse must delve into the heart of this vile organisation and probe its history, its legacy and the subsequent movements of PIE’s members after the organisation closed its doors, not only in order to establish the extent of any connection between PIE’s members and the allegations surrounding a VIP paedophile ring, but also to ascertain whether or not our Cabinet is suffering from a conflict of interest which may be preventing the Inquiry from carrying out its job.
We very much hope Inquiry Chair, panel and counsel will have the stomach for such an onerous task – and the courage to demand the truth, wherever it lies.
I think we have to be really careful with the issue of Harriet Harman and PIE because though I consider her to be a dangerous woman to the well being of children, I am not clear that she ever was a member of PIE. As I understand it, her link to PIE was via the NCCL where she worked and their inclusion of PIE’s objectives as being within their remit. Whilst I have no doubt that she and others (Patricia Hewitt et al) were of the far left view that sexual liberation included sex between children and adults, active membership of PIE would have evidenced her as a paedophile or someone with paedophile beliefs, something I think has never been proved by anyone including the Daily Mail. The far left has an uncomfortable history around such issues as these (as has feminism in my view) and the seventies were not a good place for children to grow up, surrounded as we were by the flinging off of sexual mores. What really irks me is that in the drive to hunt out the gropers, the creeps and the perverted, the women who were also involved in putting children at risk escape virtually unscathed. The righting of wrongs should include truth and reconciliation in my view and a recognition that the liberation of one generation put other generations at significant risk. All of which is probably not even linked to Saville and his doings or the rent boy rings of Westminster but mixed into the pot makes the past look like a sordid place indeed.
Hi Karen, that was my fault, Harman, Hayman, I was writing too quickly, thinking too quickly (a bit manic here at the moment). Harman was a supporter, and I find it interesting that her husband designed the PIE logo (added it to the post). Yes, an era of liberation and experimentation too, and these periods do tend to legitimise genuine abuse, at least in the eyes of those who inflict it. And I agree, this is not a gender specific phenomenon – both men and women can facilitate abuse in different ways and victims of both sexes have been terribly abused. The truth is uncompromising, and so it should be. Thanks for your comment, Karen.
Exactly abuse is not gender specific and there are women who procure children for pedophiles.
Of course some of these women have grown up inside these child rape families and when they try to escape – oddly enough- they are stopped by so called child protectors.
If I had not witnessed it 8 years ago with my own eyes I would never have believed it.
I find this article by Safe Kids International explains so much of what has been happening and is happening and why.
We had no problem in the past selling off our children as chattels. We sold off Irish children for hundreds of years. We raped them because we felt we had a divine rite/right to, just like the Roman Catholic cult.
“Armstrong divided history into the “Age of Permitted Abuse”, which went on for thousands of years until the 1800’s, and the “Age of Denied Abuse”, which went on until the 1980’s. The “Age of Concealed Abuse”, from the ‘80’s to present day will be added here.
For thousands of years, during the long, dark Age of PERMITTED Abuse, children were considered chattel and men had absolute power to use and abuse them at will. Children could be bartered, sold, battered, mutilated, starved or raped without recourse. Men were permitted sexual access to their own and to marginalized children but had to stay away from each other’s. Women had no legal right to their children and no power to protect them; they had been made completely dependent on men.
By the late 1800’s, child abuse stopped being openly permitted and the Age of DENIED Abuse began. It was at this point mental health professionals became important in helping to shift the blame away from perpetrators. Sigmund Freud, who had discovered that sexual abuse by fathers was common, extremely damaging and the cause of serious mental illness, was pressured greatly by the Power Elite to drop this valid theory. He capitulated and his new theories shifted blame to children for the next 100 years, claiming their reports of abuse were fantasies. This helped maintain male entitlement for another hundred years. In the 1950’s, Alfred Kinsey reinforced this position with his invalid findings that children enjoyed sex from birth and that incest (child rape) can be a positive experience for the child.”
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
“David Cameron telling a survivor in person that he was essentially lying about there being a VIP paedophile ring, ”
Now we all know that David cannot make a statement like this unless he was with the survivor 24/7 at the time.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Get your facts right. Go back to the link in your own article and read it. He said there was no evidence of a coverup of a paedo ring, not that there was no ring. So your basic premise is completely wrong.
Dear Nonnymouse, if you want to post on this forum you’ll need to engage civilly. I’m accepting your comment because it appears to be your first, and because as is often the case with angry individuals, you haven’t taken the time to understand the nuance.
David Cameron does, as you’ve understood, make the point that he believes there was no cover up. However, if you read the article carefully, you will see that he is referring to findings on a particular inquiry which did not reveal any evidence of a ring. Therefore, by implication, David Cameron is saying that there was no paedophile ring. His comment about a cover up being a conspiracy theory would not make sense otherwise. Cameron also has a track record of being rather dismissive about child abuse in general and his view contradicts Theresa May’s who says there may have been a cover up. So altogether, it reads as if he really doesn’t want to contemplate the possibility that there may be a VIP paedophile ring.
I hope that helps clarify things for you. And if you want to post here again, you will only be allowed to do so if you interact civilly, with everyone.
Maggie Tuttle said:
nonnymouse look at http://www.childrenscreamingtobeheard.com the silent witnesses here les the truth, when on the page click to
The Kinsey Institute-Exposed A Warning to Parents and Governments.
if you have any respect for your self and for the abused children then dont put your self in the same boat of the corruption with Cameron and the rest of the army “In a child’s best interest”
The inquiry should indeed start within Westminster for unless perpetrators are cast out and prosecuted for crimes against children how can we put any faith or trust in our PM, MPs and Ladies & Lords?
As for PIE, organisations like that don’t disappear but are reformed somewhere else, somewhere in plain sight perhaps! Westminster? Chequers? Any place where there is high security. These people don’t change, they just change venues!
Talking of security, all home security files, should be investigated too!
Pingback: Toxic Stigma | CLUSTER B
Fintan Heatley said:
[edited] convicted twice paedophile and child psychologist was allowed to be involved in the running of [edited] hospital in Lisburn. This was despite being banned from working with children in mainland UK after conviction . HIA credits him with bringing UDR soldiers in to entertain the kids at Christmas in 1975 . [edited] hospitals upstairs unit opened in May 1971 , why has noone asked why the HIA records start in 1973 ? Why was a children’s mental health unit opened in 1971 when no previous or since serious action been taken to deal with children’s mental health , what was the alternative motive. Chris Moore covered Kincora , but the story behind [edited] is worse , the fact that a member of PIE was allowed to operate in a job for years in NI after being banned from working with children in UK after being deported from USA for child porn . [edited] operated out of the child guidance clinic at [edited] terrace on [edited] Road in late 1972 .
Many thanks for your comment, Fintan. Due to reporting regulations we’ve had to edit the comment, but if you have links which verify the claims above, please add them and we can then remove the edits.