Female Paedophiles Abused As Children Revealed In Paedophile Information Exchange Survey

06 Friday Jul 2018

Posted by Natasha in child welfare, Researching Reform

A survey has been published which offers a detailed breakdown of members of The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), a pro-paedophilia activist group in the UK established in the 1970s.

The organisation received government funding, and counted several political figures as members. It campaigned under the pretext that it hoped to liberate children’s sexuality and often lobbied the government to reduce or remove the age of consent completely. Despite its campaigns, which also conflated underage sex with gay rights, PIE was widely believed to be nothing more than an attempt at facilitating adult men wanting to have sex with children. PIE officially disbanded in the 1980s.

The survey itself can be found on BoyWiki, a site for male-oriented paedophiles, which aims to encourage paedophiles to work together to record paedophilia’s history and culture.

The questionnaire, which has been uploaded onto the French BoyWiki site, was produced by PIE, and ran from 1975 to 1976, over a period of eight months, in an attempt to gather information about its members.

The total number of members as at 29th March 1976, was 127, with 114 of those being from the UK. Of those, 96% were paedophiles, with 87% being from the UK.

Whilst the majority of members were male homosexual paedophiles, information about two female paedophiles, recorded only as paedophile A and paedophile B, can be seen inside the survey. The survey tells us that neither woman was married at the time, did not have any children and were aged 22, and 26 respectively. Paedophile A appears to have been attracted to children aged between 5-9 years. Paedophile B, the survey tells us, was unsure about her preferences at the time. Both confirmed that their first sexual experiences were with women.

The survey reveals a startling fact about PIE’s female paedophiles: Much like PIE’s male members, both women say that their first sexual experience took place while they were small children.

There is a lot of detailed information inside the survey, from members’ marital status, precise sexual orientation, age groups which are most attractive to PIE’s paedophile membership and a detailed report below the survey itself, written by Keith Hose, who was one of PIE’s chairmen. The report offers general conclusions about the data, but also tries to analyse why its female membership is so low. This is an extract from the report:

“The low number of females in our sample needs more explaining. Our advertising was limited to predominantly male homosexual publications at first. But as we became more widely known it could be expected that the number of female paedophiles in our sample would increase with the number of male heterosexual paedophiles. This has not happened.

One possible reason is that we are an organisation run by males. It is well known by those in the Women’s Liberation Movement that women tend not to join organisations run by men, especially when discussion of intimate aspects of the personality is involved. While this may be part of the explanation of the low number of female paedophiles in the survey, the major reason may be concerned with definition. The word paedophilia may be more applicable to an adult male, since it is used to describe a sexual attraction toward children. Sexual feelings and acts have been defined in various different ways from culture to culture. Acts such as two men embracing are defined to be sexual in some cultures but not in others.

In our culture such an act is defined as sexual for men but not for women. It is the difference in the treatment of the sexuality of the sexes which makes comparison difficult. The role of woman in our society allows her far more tactile contact with children than the role of man allows him. Some contact between a man and a child would be regarded as sexual while the same contact between a woman and a child would not be regarded as such. There is even a tendency to deny the full sexual nature of acts which do not involve heterosexual coitus. Therefore, it is easy to see that a man could be more easily defined to be paedophile by either himself or others than a woman.”

Many thanks to Maggie Tuttle for sharing this survey with us.

PIE

Child Abuse Inquiry To Investigate Paedophile Information Exchange

01 Thursday Feb 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 1 Comment

The nation’s Independent Inquiry Into Child Sexual Abuse has confirmed that it will be looking into concerns that Home Office money was used to finance a high profile paedophile group. The Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) was active in the 70s and 80s and counted high profile politicians amongst its members.

It’s not clear whether the Inquiry will summon members of PIE to any future hearings dealing with the matter, however we have urged the panel to do so, especially in light of the scant evidence available on PIE’s activities and in relation to allegations surrounding the group.

The Inquiry’s lead lawyers have also issued a formal statement about the way the Inquiry will address those who come forward with allegations. Unless a conviction has taken place, or enough evidence has been produced to prove an allegation, the panel will from now on refer to individuals who come forward as complainants, rather than survivors or victims.

The decision has come at a time when doubts are being cast over allegations about a VIP paedophile ring. The lack of evidence and the incredibly long lapse of time has made substantiating these claims almost impossible. And the inability to prove these claims is being viewed by some as proof that alleged instances of child abuse must be false.

Check out our Inquiry Library page for further information on PIE.

The Child Abuse Inquiry Must Question Members Of The Paedophile Information Exchange

10 Tuesday Mar 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, child welfare

≈ 4 Comments

The Paedophile Information Exchange, a movement set up in the 1970’s to promote sexual activity between minors and adults could hold the key to unlocking controversial allegations about a VIP paedophile ring. It could also give the nation’s Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse a foothold on the scale and extent of child sexual exploitation within government.

PIE, as it was known, was as notorious for its open stance on overtly sexual relationships with children, as it was for its membership. High profile politicians and peers have all been linked to the movement, which was disbanded ten years after its inception. But claims now surfacing about abuse in the 70’s and 80’s by politicians and Lords in Westminster raise fresh questions about PIE and its involvement with an alleged VIP paedophile ring.

If we were chairing the nation’s inquiry into child sexual abuse, this is certainly where we would start our investigation in relation to potential abuses within government. And we would look to PIE’s membership to find out more.

The internet is teeming with information on PIE’s members, both established and suspected. Street Democracy has a long, and lurid list of confirmed and possible members, many of whom worked in academia, or advised the government on child welfare issues. Brynalyn Victims has an updated list which also focuses on areas in the United Kingdom where child abuse appears to be most acute. There are also forums where people gather and discuss abuse at the hands of PIE – all materials the Inquiry should be scanning and analysing to mobilise their investigation.

What is startling about these sites is that they do not just detail PIE’s monstrous membership. They also bring together victims of abuse who talk about their experiences, where they occurred and whom they were abused by. Cynics will be quick to point out that until proven otherwise, sentiments on sites like these are nothing more than allegations, but the culture surrounding victims is an oppressive one and many can only air genuine abuses online, historically ignored and marginalised by society as they have been. Those allegations which are false, will be a small minority nestled amongst the truly appalling truths survivors are sharing. The sites also hold newspaper clippings highlighting the amount of indecent material PIE members held in their homes. And whilst much of this material may be gone by now, some may remain and by implication offer a rich source of information for any inquiry attempting to discover the truth about high-profile child abuse in Britain.

PIE members have always maintained that their movement was pure, liberated and progressive and that children needed sexual stimulation from a young age. This was not a movement campaigning for mature 15 year olds to be able to engage in relationships with young men – when surveyed, PIE members’ truly grotesque preferences were laid bare: most were attracted to girls aged 8–11 and boys aged 11–15.

Their magazine, MagPIE, available online for reading, attempts to intellectualise sexual activity between adults and children, without any attempt at demonstrating that children feel comfortable with the concept. It is a one way conversation. The publication confuses homosexuality with child sexual exploitation and tries to bolster the latter, using the former. It is a disgraceful exercise in the legitimisation of child abuse.

Here is an extract from the magazine:

You show me yours…
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.

And here is one member’s encounter with a young boy of around 12:

I HAVE SEEN THE FUTURE and it works
Keith Spence
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.

The nation’s inquiry has been tasked with looking at child abuse from the 1940’s to the present day. PIE’s activity spanned the 70’s and the 80’s (and perhaps even the 90’s and beyond after it was shut down). This makes the movement ripe for investigation, not least of all because of the movement’s ethos and the subsequent arrest and charge of several of its members for child sexual exploitation-related offences. It could also be at the heart of child sexual abuse claims within Westminster. It makes sense to start with PIE.

The Inquiries Act 2005, gives the Chair the power to compel witnesses and to demand the production of documents and other materials to assist the inquiry. We think the Inquiry should compel PIE’s members to give evidence, and to produce it. Do you?

Tom O’Carroll was a Chair for PIE. His vault contained images of boys as young as six being raped and tortured. Please click on the image if you’d like to read more about O’Carroll.

We would like to say a very big thank you to The Real Victims Voice for their help in sourcing the PIE membership materials.

Did Members Of The Paedophile Information Exchange Reform To Create A VIP Paedophile Ring?

09 Monday Mar 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, child welfare

≈ 13 Comments

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.

Sajid Javid’s New Think Tank on Child Sexual Abuse Must Strike the Right Balance

02 Tuesday Jun 2020

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 2 Comments

Former Home Secretary Sajid Javidhas announced that he will lead a “No Holds Barred” think tank on child sexual abuse at the Centre for Social Justice (CSJ), but that will mean treading a fine line between cultural pressure points and universal truths that lie at the heart of abuse.

Javid’s think tank on child sexual abuse – do we really need another – was announced in The Telegraph on 30 May, and included an account of what the exercise would involve, as well as some not-so subtle soundbites blaming lockdown for child abuse ahead of schools reopening in full the following day.

Among the list of items Javid’s think tank hopes to look at, is how gang-based exploitation within UK Pakistani communities evolved, and why, as he puts it, “a disproportionate number of people are from Asian heritage, particularly Pakistani heritage.”

Mr Javid is himself from Pakistan, so it makes sense for the government to wheel him out to spearhead this think tank. It’s harder to rail against someone calling out their own culture, even if you suspect that person may not actually think they are from that culture at all.

In danger of going down the Priti Patel rabbit hole – she was widely ridiculed for her tough stance on immigration, despite her own parents being immigrants – Javid has a fine line to tread if he wants to produce a report worth reading.

Having grown up around a lot of different communities, I had the privilege of being exposed to Pakistani culture. Like any community-based culture, it is warm, embracing and places a heavy emphasis on family and protecting your own.

But like all cultures, Pakistani customs, many of which are rooted in ‘popular Islam’, are not always so warm, and include ill-informed practices which label other cultural groups within Pakistan and non-Muslim demographics, as undesirable, and inferior.

The concept of religious superiority, exalting your own and pushing away the unfamiliar, can be seen in almost every monotheistic religion we have, from Catholicism to Judaism. It would not be right to suggest that Islam is alone in its self exaltation, but it would not be wrong to assume this way of thinking plays a part in child sexual abuse, either.

It is now well understood that the majority of child victims in places like Rotherham were young, white girls, and that Pakistani men have been disproportionately involved in developing the grooming gangs that exploited them.

A 2013 study by the Child Exploitation and Online Police Command (CEOP), found that 50% of offenders who targeted vulnerable children, like the girls in Rotherham, involved all-Asian groups, while 21% were white and the remaining 17% involved multi-ethnic groups.

Break down the data further, and CEOP figures tell us that 75% of recorded group abusers, who targeted victims based on their vulnerability, are Asian, despite Asians making up only 7.5% of the UK’s population.

In a culture where sexual expression is limited out of deference to a higher power, and your own children are considered sacred, men who want to exploit children will inevitably look outside of their immediate communities to carry out these crimes.

The same cannot be said of the white, male population in the UK.

The CEOP study found that 100% of men with a long-standing paedophilic interest who abuse children in the UK are white. These men also act in groups (paedophile rings), though they tend to be smaller than groups formed by Asian men, typically acting in pairs rather than groups of four.

However, the study doesn’t factor in organisations like the Paedophile Information Exchange, whose members were both male, and female, and most likely predominantly white.

Some statistics suggest that overall, the vast majority of child sex offenders in England and Wales are white males, who made up 98% of all defendants in 2015-16. White men also represented 85% of convicted child sex offenders and 86% of the general population in 2011.

So what could Sajid Javid’s report have to offer, on a subject already being handled by the nation’s child abuse inquiry, and a phenomenon that we know involves more than just culture and religious belief?

A progressive report, which sets idiosyncrasies within Pakistani culture, and other cultures too, against those universal truths about child sexual abuse, might make it an exercise worth undertaking.

Pakistani men who are inclined towards child sexual abuse may have an approach which differs from other groups, but the underlying motivations are no different to those held by all other child sexual abusers.

Understanding that cultural norms are not the incentive but the excuse to carry out abuse should be at the heart of Javid’s report.

And while we don’t hesitate to question the Catholic Church about how its vow of celibacy emboldens priests to abuse children or its confessional protects sexual predators, identifying cultural and religious practices which further abuse has to be done thoughtfully and with the acknowledgment that child abuse crosses every border and every boundary we know.

There is something else. If Javid plans to use this report to feed our Pakistani population to the far right in order to further his political career inside a very white, elitist, British government, the backlash would be significant. The British, already divided by a pandemic, police brutality and Brexit, won’t be able to take much more.

Javid’s inquiry will look at grooming gangs and online child sexual abuse. Another report, which Javid commissioned in 2018 into the “characteristics and contexts” of gangs abusing children which argued that ignoring issues such as ethnicity is more likely to fuel racist movements, is set to be published later this year.

questions-2110967_1920

Tory Whip Confesses To Helping MPs Out Of “Scandals Involving Small Boys.”

26 Monday Feb 2018

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 6 Comments

A documentary made in 1995 about the role of Whips in Westminster, features an interview with a former Tory whip admitting that MPs would come to him for help covering up scandals, including what appear to be incidents of sexual abuse involving young boys.

Tim Fortescue can be seen in the clip talking about the kinds of personal problems politicians might have, and how whips were on hand to offer damage control for scandals that, as Fortescue puts it, “a member seemed likely to be mixed up in.” Whips would be only too happy to oblige, as the favour would ultimately lead to unconditional loyalty and obedience from the troubled MP:

“And we would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points… and if I mean, that sounds a pretty, pretty nasty reason, but it’s one of the reasons because if we could get a chap out of trouble then, he will do as we ask forever more.”

Whilst the language doesn’t automatically imply guilt on the part of those MPs who were mentioned in scandals of different types, there is a strong implication of it, as Fortescue explains at the start of the clip that MPs were encouraged to come to him, and other whips, with the whole truth. This is the key phrase from the clip:

“Anyone with any sense, who was in trouble, would come to the whips and tell them the truth.”

The documentary also features Geoffrey Dickens, an outspoken Conservative MP who was responsible for calling out the government over an alleged paedophile ring operating between 1981-1985, at the height of the Paedophile Information Exchange’s involvement in British politics. Dickens also used his Parliamentary Privilege to call out diplomat Sir Peter Hayman as a paedophile, which was widely condemned at the time. Hayman was confirmed to be a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange, and was eventually jailed for child sexual offences.

Dickens is perhaps best remembered for handing over a dossier to Leon Brittan, with the names of every politician who was a member of PIE, and all those involved in child sexual abuse as well. On his meeting with Brittan, Dickens said that he was “encouraged” by the meeting, but later expressed concern that PIE had not been banned.

In 2013, Tom Watson, a Labour politician representing Bromwich East, asked to have access to the dossier. The dossier was never found.

The documentary, entitled, “Life in The Whips Office,” runs to just over 58 minutes and is worth viewing for the revelations, there are several, around child sexual abuse and gender inequality, and for a look at current day politicians as they were when they were green and hungry for recognition.

Fortescue also makes disparaging comments about women in the documentary. When asked about the fact that the country has had a female Prime Minister but no female whips, Fortescue has this to say:

“Well, you’ve got to get your priorities right, haven’t you?”

The Interviewer goes on to ask, “Meaning what? The Whips’ Office is more important than who leads the party?”

And Fortescue replies, “You said it, I didn’t….”

The clip in which Fortescue mentions helping politicians deal with allegations relating to sleeping with small boys starts at 23:35. (We’ve also added it below).

The documentary resurfaced this week in a tweet by Richard Laird, Highland Councillor for Inverness Central, and Deputy Leader of the SNP Group.

With very many thanks to Raul for sharing this tweet with us.

“Paedophilia Is Natural And Normal Among Males”

01 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by Natasha in Question It, Researching Reform

≈ 15 Comments

Welcome to another week.

A body of research produced in part by respected academics made the rounds last week on the internet, and stems from a news item which was published in 2o14, which claims that paedophilia is ‘natural and normal for males’.

The article explains that several of the authors for this research are ex members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), and that at least two are considered to be well respected university professors in their fields. The article highlights views bolstering the view that paedophilia is part of male sexual desire, and mentions counter views, also.

Our question to you then, is this: do you think this research is right?

face_question_mark

Justitia Et Lux -Child Abuse Allegations & Cover Ups

21 Thursday Jan 2016

Posted by Natasha in child abuse, child abuse inquiry, Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

We’ve recently started reading a Scribd account called Justitia Et Lux , which hosts and publishes information on high profile child abuse allegations and cover ups in the UK, and the materials are very interesting.

We haven’t had a chance to look at every file, but what we have seen looks to be a combination of resources collected from newspaper articles, to more sensitive documents like redacted witness statements and data sheets tracking politicians’ movements and affiliations during the height of the Paedophile Information Exchange‘s notoriety.

Someone has gone to a great deal of trouble to explore patterns and evidence for child sexual abuse within Westminster and beyond, and the results are thought provoking.

We do not know who runs this account, but they look to be campaigning for transparency within government and the pursuit of truth about the extent of child abuse within the UK.

Thank you to Maggie Tuttle for sharing this item with us.

JEL

Is The Nation’s Child Abuse Inquiry Fundamentally Flawed?

14 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by Natasha in Researching Reform

≈ 3 Comments

The recent news that the Statutory Inquiry into Child Abuse would not be questioning individuals has caused confusion amongst the public and survivors, but a closer look at how Inquiries work reveals a concerning flaw in the process.

Home Secretary Theresa May confirmed this week that the nation’s Inquiry into child abuse would not “probe individuals”, but did not go on to clarify what she meant, leaving many baffled and angered by the revelation.

What is clear however, is this. The Inquiry has been tasked with looking into institutional and non institutional child sexual abuse. The current terms of reference will include Parliament, ministers and the Cabinet Office, as well as Government Departments, police, schools, local authorities and more. That ‘more’, is at the discretion of the Inquiry Chair – she can, if she so wishes, expand the list of organisations to include others.

We also know that the Inquiry has been set up to look at “the extent to which State and non-State institutions have failed in their duty of care to protect children from sexual abuse and exploitation; to consider the extent to which those failings have since been addressed; to identify further action needed to address any failings identified; to consider the steps which it is necessary for State and non-State institutions to take in order to protect children from such abuse in future; and to publish a report with recommendations.”

And whilst it is not part of the Inquiry’s remit to determine whether someone is guilty of a crime, whether civil or criminal, they are able to make findings of fact when it comes to determining any failures to protect children within the relevant institutions. This of course, means that the Inquiry will at some point be confronted with information that shows people either ignored established child abuse, or engaged in it.

With its new-found Statutory status, allowing the Inquiry to summon individuals to speak about what they know in relation to the department or institution they work or worked in, you could be forgiven for thinking that such powers might be used to secure reluctant witnesses who may have seen or heard about child sexual abuses, before the Inquiry. Or to question such witnesses in order to establish where the trail, as May puts it, begins and ends.

But in reality, this is not how the Inquiry is likely to work. Travel across to Australia’s Royal Commission Into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (their version of our child abuse inquiry), where a possible answer can be found. Their Public Hearings section explains the following:

“The Royal Commission holds formal public hearings to hear evidence about child sexual abuse within institutions. The hearings do not focus on individual cases, but instead focus on case studies of how institutions have responded to allegations and proven instances of child sexual abuse.”

Whilst our Inquiry is not a Royal Commission, much of our own Inquiry’s scope and remit have taken inspiration from Australia’s own investigation, and it is most likely that our public hearings will work in much the same way. In retrospect, what Theresa May may have been trying to explain, is that individuals will not simply be summoned to share their knowledge of child abuse within a particular institution or organisation, whether in person or through documentation. Rather, those who come forward will come specifically from institutions who were alerted to allegations or proven instances of child abuse, and will bring with them a case study on how their institution dealt with those allegations.

If this is indeed the way our Inquiry hopes to operate, it raises several very concerning questions. Who is going to prepare such case studies? How will the Inquiry know whether these studies are impartial, objective and complete? And if they are not going to summon individuals from institutions whose remits did not include dealing with allegations of child abuse, but who have a potentially deep and important knowledge base for the Inquiry, how will that information be sourced?

This takes us into yet more controversial territory. The Paedophile Information Exchange clearly falls foul of the above remit. It is unlikely that anyone who was abused by PIE members or a potential VIP paedophile ring would raise the abuse directly with their abusers. In any event, these organisations were not institutions as such. They were movements whose business was the promotion of child sexual abuse, the former being an open movement, the latter a criminal one.There is also the added complication of the abuse in those circumstances emanating directly from individuals inside the organisation, rather than being a scenario where victims sought help from departments designed to respond to such allegations. (A complication which may also arise inside approved institutions, but that’s another headache for another day).

And yet, PIE was a legitimate movement which was supported by several high-profile politicians during its time. It is so obviously important to understanding the culture and cause behind child sexual abuse in our country, that to leave it out altogether would be counter productive. Its omission would create a gaping hole in the Inquiry’s understanding of the phenomenon, not least of all because many of PIE’s alleged members appeared to be government officials, some of whom were tasked with crafting and advising on child welfare policy. But that is what the Home Secretary seemed to imply in her most recent statement. It has also fuelled fears amongst the public that senior politicians will effectively be shielded from any investigations which take place, despite May’s assurances that allegations would be passed on to the police.

We are still not clear on exactly what the Home Secretary meant nor whether the Inquiry will follow Australia’s suit on the Hearings front, but we very much hope that the Inquiry will find a way to accommodate investigations of those institutions which sit outside such a remit whilst potentially having played a significant role in the proliferation of child abuse in England and Wales.

Lowell Goddard, Chair for the Statutory Inquiry Into Child Abuse

Theresa May: “Child Abuse Inquiry Won’t Probe Individuals.”

14 Saturday Mar 2015

Posted by Natasha in child abuse inquiry, child welfare

≈ 25 Comments

We should be used to disappointment by now as far as the nation’s inquiry into child sexual abuse is concerned, but the latest statements from Home Secretary Theresa May are not encouraging.

In a piece she wrote for The Daily Telegraph, May warns that what we have seen so far is just the tip of a grotesque iceberg which will highlight that, “sexual exploitation runs through every level of British society like a “stick of Blackpool rock.” This all sounds on cue and very much in line with what many of us working in the sector have known for a very long time, but then, the caveats start to creep into May’s rhetoric.

She goes on to say that “the trail” will lead into schools, hospitals, churches and youth clubs as well as “many other institutions that should have been places of safety but instead became the setting for the most appalling abuse”. However, she doesn’t mention Parliament in the list, despite the very many allegations we are seeing now about high profile paedophile rings operating inside Westminster, and the fact that the current terms of reference include Parliament, and its ministers.

And then May tells us that the inquiry will not be probing individuals at all. This she says in connection with questions about the VIP paedophile ring. We can only speculate as to whether she read our piece suggesting that members of the now infamous Paedophile Information Exchange be summoned to give evidence to the Inquiry, but it seems rather uncanny that she should make that point now.

This latest revelation will be an enormous blow to many. It is most likely that members of PIE will be mentioned by certain survivors and that they will have a great deal of information on the movement both during and after its heyday in the 70’s and 80’s. May tells us that any allegations surrounding individuals will be passed on to the police, but their remit is not to work out how the abuse came about, or the wider implications of the cases they will receive.

The Inquiry is missing an incredibly important opportunity, not only to understand the cultural and social origins of child sexual abuse in Britain, but the structure in which it works – and therefore the mechanics of how to stop it. Which, as Theresa May knows, is part of the Inquiry’s remit after all.

UPDATE: The original piece from the Daily Telegraph was published a few hours after we wrote this post – you can read it here.