Children as Young as 8 were abused at school linked to pedophile MP Cyril Smith [Mirror, April 2014]
And in late 1975, PIE Newsletter No. 8 carried what appears to be a genuine advert at the bottom of page 5 requesting donations for the Save the Children Fund at offices on 157 Clapham Road. If Save the Children were advertising with Paedophile Information Exchange at this time it will be important to find who the advertising contact was made through. Both Sir Peter Hayman and Sir John Henniker-Major had connections to Save the Children.
Sir Peter Hayman’s connections to Save the Children and the International Students House were forged through his wife (not mother) Rosemary Blomefield. Sir John Henniker-Major’s wife Lady Henniker-Major was also ‘very active in the overseas relief and fundraising work of the Save the Children Fund and its Danish sister organisation Red Barnet.” Lord Gore-Booth (of Malty, West Ridings of York), a noted British diplomat and Chairman of The Save the Children Fund 1970 – 1976 wrote Lady Henniker-Major’s obituary.
Apparently PIE had already moved to Home Office funded Release on Elgin Avenue, Maida Vale (near the BBC Maida Vale Studios on Delamere Road) within about a year of forming, before Christian Wolmar arrived at the office in 1976:
“Under O’Carroll’s astute leadership, PIE developed a strategy to infiltrate the wider libertarian movement. I had personal experience of this. I worked for Release, an agency that helped people with legal and drug problems. When I started there in 1976, PIE was using its address, the respectable sounding 1 Elgin Avenue, London W9. There were plenty of offices available, but allying itself with the Home Office-funded Release and an auspicious address gave PIE respectability. When I asked other members of the collective about it, they were very vague, and so we invited a speaker from PIE to a meeting. He gave us the benefit of his views, which were not only that there should be no age of consent, but that by banning underage sex adults were actually being cruel to children by denying them their sexuality and excluding them from an enjoyable experience. The poste restante arrangement was ended forthwith.” [Christian Wolmar, Looking back to the Great British Paedophile Infiltration campaign of the 1970s, 27 February 2014, Independent]
Also note that PIE’s announcement of Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL’s) ‘official’ affiliation with the National Council of Civil Liberties coincides with the announcement of PAL’s leaders, Tony Hughes and Keith Newton, receiving non-custodial sentences for their sexual assault of a 9 year old boy. The process of arrest and trial would have been underway prior to NCCL’s generous offer to affiliate and certainly didn’t dissuade NCCL that affiliation was a good idea. And if this was ‘official’ affiliation did a period of non-official affiliation exist beforehand?
Palaver No.3 (June/July 1975) below reports that the NCCL’s affiliation was indeed ‘prompted very largely by recent events’ – police investigations following the Sunday People’s headline on 1 June 1975.
“In effect this means that we will be in a position to seek support from NCCL in the event of any future ‘troubles’.”
As the move towards the unionisation of pedophiles gathered momentum bolstered with the promise of NCCL’s legal clout behind them, Charles Napier and Roger Moody engaged in a spot of public debating in pedophile newsletters over what would be gained by going on strike, asking whether withdrawing pedophile labour from youth services and schools could effectively force the abolition of the age of consent and override parental control of children:
What is required is:
1) a very careful analysis of the role we paedophiles play in bulwarking repression (if all boy lovers in approved schools and private boarding schools were to strike, how many would be forced to close?)
2) a building of solidarity in struggle — which is woefully lacking at present (has any paedophile in this country really fought on behalf of an imprisoned fellow paedophile?) and
3) a revolutionary, perspective on social change and minority sexual rights. (Specifically, this would mean refusing to work for a mere lowering of the age of consent, or a mere handing-over of control of the young, from the courts to parents.)
May I invite anyone who is concerned in tackling these issues to contact me as soon as possible.
Roger Moody, 123 Dartmouth Park Hill, London N19. [Spotlightonabuse: Paedophile Politics, Gay Left, Issue 2, Spring 1976]