OK - the following article claims that Savile was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
The sources are not disclosed. However, I'm sure the membership list is a highly guarded secret.
If it's true that Savile was a member of PIE, then his crimes have been known for decades.
The PIE membership list would have been known to Special Branch and to British intelligence, and presumably also to the BBC's Man in the Mac, the SIS liaison.
Quote:Savile member of the Paedophile Information Exchange an Organisation which campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent in the UK
October 18, 2012
NEWS RELEASE
The British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) is embroiled in a child sex scandal centred on Jimmy Savile, its anchorman on many popular entertainment shows for over thirty years. Now new information is surfacing which indicates that Jimmy Savile was a fully paid up member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E) - an organisation which campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent in the UK.
The letter below has been sent to Lord Patten, Chairman of the BBC Trust. In it I have stated "I am placing this information before you in this open letter as I feel that the BBC should now initiate a full investigation into these reports suggesting that during the 1970's and early 1980's the BBC's editorial policy was influenced in favour of P.I.E. This alleged infiltration of the BBC by P.I.E might also explain how Savile was able to operate as a sexual predator during his extended tenure at the BBC without challenge and/or prosecution."
I will pursue my objective of securing a full investigation into the alleged membership of Jimmy Savile of the organisation, P.I.E. I will also continue to seek a full and open investigation of the influence, if any, that P.I.E exerted on BBC editorial policy during the 1970′s and 1980′s. I also expect the authorities to investigate whether any BBC employees were members of P.I.E or expressed sympathy and support for the aims and objectives of P.I.E.
Further links are set out at the bottom of this email.
MICHAEL .H. MURRIN
21 GOODWOOD AVENUE. PRESTON. PR2 9TZ
TELE: 0795 142 6617
murrin@hotmail.co.uk
Lord Patten
Chairman
The British Broadcasting Association Trust
The BBC Trust Unit
180 Great Portland Street
London
W1W 5QZ
12th October 2012.
Dear Lord Patten,
RE: BBC / Jimmy Savile.
This is an open letter, i.e. I do not regard it as confidential and reserve the right to publish it. There are some parts of it in italics, these sections I do regard as confidential and, as such, they will not be published.
During 1982 I initiated an investigation into corruption in public life which resulted in the criminal prosecution of some high profile figures for offences against children, including serial child rape.
PARAGRAPH DELETED.
I turn now to the reason for my writing to you at this point.
My investigation led me to the fringes of the Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E), an organisation whose history is a matter of public record. The organisation was founded during October 1974 and officially disbanded during 1984. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_...n_Exchange
Due to a lack of financial support my investigation into PIE was severely limited although I did secure two names on the membership list of the organisation, one was Jimmy Savile. One of the key aims of the organisation was to secure a reduction of the age of consent in the UK to FIVE and then abolish it altogether. The organisation secured significant support within parliament, the entertainment industry, the media and similar, professional, organisations. It was reported that, when the organisation was finally closed down, the membership list was found to contain the names of nationally known politicians, entertainers and people engaged in professions, including the medical and legal profession. Some teachers were, I believe, also found to be registered members. The quality and influential nature of its membership and the extent of support for the aims of the organisation among opinion formers' probably explains how it managed to remain in existence in this country for a decade before it was finally closed down. My investigations did clearly indicate that the tentacles of P.I.E extended deep into the establishment including the BBC and Parliament.
This quote from the book Paedophilia The Radical Case (Chapter 11) gives an indication of just how far the tentacles of P.I.E had spread and how influential the organisation had become.
"One outcome of the MIND conference was the suggestion to Keith that PIE should submit evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. With amazing despatch Keith did exactly this, preparing and submitting the seventeen-page document discussed in Chapter 6 in a matter of weeks, without the benefit of research time or facilities at his disposal. What's more, we have it on reliable authority that his work caught the imagination of no less a figure than the Home Secretary of the time, Roy Jenkins."
The source who notified me that Savile was a fully paid up member of the organisation is extremely reliable. Other sources implied that Savile's membership of P.I.E was known to others within the BBC who were either sympathetic to its objectives or were members themselves. This might explain why there appeared to be no effective pursuit of the organisation by BBC sponsored current affairs and investigative programmes during that period of P.I.E's existence.
I am placing this information before you in this open letter (except for the parts in ITALICS) as I feel that the BBC should now initiate a full investigation into theses reports suggesting that during the 1970's and early 1980's the BBC's editorial policy was influenced in favour of P.I.E. This alleged infiltration of the BBC by P.I.E might also explain how Savile was able to operate as a sexual predator during his extended tenure at the BBC without challenge and/or prosecution.
It has been reported that Savile was responsible for the sexual assault of a brain damaged child at Stoke Mandeville Hospital. It has been stated "it can get no lower than this." I beg to differ. My understanding is that the archive at New Scotland Yard hold an image of the youngest child recorded as being sexually abused, the child was female and was still attached to its mother by the umbilical cord. Perhaps there is some way to go before we reach the bottom of this "cesspit?"
I do expect and formal and comprehensive response from you within a reasonable time period. A copy of this letter has been forward to The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Mr Bernard Hogan-Howe.
Yours sincerely,
Michael H. Murrin
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The PIE membership list would have been known to Special Branch and to British intelligence, and presumably also to the BBC's Man in the Mac, the SIS liaison.
Indeed. And Sir Jimmy obviously posed no threat to the establishment with his abusive predation of minors. If, on the other hand, he had been a paid up member of the Communist Party of Great Britain it would have been quite another matter and totally unacceptable and his career at the BBC would have been a short one.
Meanwhile, back in more exalted surroundings:
Quote:Retired bishop Peter Ball arrested on suspicion of child sex offences
Rt Rev Peter Ball thought to be most senior Church of England figure to be arrested in connection with a sex abuse inquiry
Robert Booth
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 November 2012 12.24 GMT
Detectives investigating complaints of sexual abuse in the Church of England have arrested a retired bishop on suspicion of eight sexual offences against eight boys and young men ranging in age from 12 to early 20s.
Officers from the Sussex police serious crime directorate involved in a six-month investigation into historic allegations at the diocese of Chichester arrested the Rt Rev Peter Ball, former bishop of Lewes and later bishop of Gloucester, on Tuesday morning at his home address near Landport, Somerset.
Ball is thought to be the most senior figure in the church to be arrested in connection with a sex abuse investigation. The bishop, now 80, has connections to Prince Charles, whom he has described in the past as "a loyal friend".
Police also arrested a 67-year old retired priest at his home address near Haywards Heath on suspicion of two separate sexual offences against two teenage boys in East Sussex between 1981 and 1983.
Detectives carried out a "comprehensive and painstaking" three-month analysis of two reports from Lambeth Palace, "which contain reviews of church files relating to certain child safeguarding issues within the Chichester diocese from between 20 and 25 years ago". They also reviewed internal church files containing details of clergymen's careers in the diocese, including Ball's.
A spokeswoman for a group representing the survivors of abuse by clergy said the arrests were "historic in terms of the seniority of the people being looked at". "This is the first bishop we have seen arrested over abuse allegations," said Ann Lawrence, of the Ministry and Clergy Sexual Abuse Survivors Group.
Sussex police said: "The investigation, which relates to alleged offences not previously reported to Sussex police, has taken six months so far. This is a very complex inquiry, in the course of which many people, all now adults, have had to be traced, together with other witnesses and records from a wide variety of sources, and there is continuing consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service.
"There are no allegations of recent or current offending and police emphasise that there is nothing to suggest that any young people are currently at risk. Police also stress that the allegations are being treated separately and do not involve the two men allegedly acting together."
The handling of allegations of abuse in the Chichester diocese was subject to an inquiry this year commissioned by the outgoing archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, thought to be the first such CofE "visitation" in more than 100 years. When he published the interim report in August, which did not identify any of those accused, Williams said the "abiding hurt and damage done to [survivors of abuse] is something that none of us in the church can ignore, and I am deeply sorry that they should have been let down by those they ought to have been able to trust".
In May 2011, Baronness Butler Sloss produced a report, commissioned by the church, reviewing the cases of two separate priests serving in the diocese who between 1996 and 2010 were the subject of allegations of child abuse that took place before 1984. She concluded that across the diocese there was "a lack of understanding of the seriousness of historic child abuse". There was, in the early stages, "a failure to respond appropriately to disclosures of abuse by victims and to give them adequate and timely support", the report said.
Ball was a senior figure in the diocese before he was enthroned as the bishop of Gloucester in 1991, a ceremony attended by Prince Charles. When Ball resigned in 1993 he moved to Manor Lodge, in the Somerset village of Aller. The wisteria-clad property is owned by the Duchy of Cornwall, the private estate headed by Charles.
At the time, Ball said: "He has been wonderfully kind and allowed me to have a duchy house. The prince is a loyal friend. I have immense admiration for him, he has been through horrific times and is a great person."
In a statement responding to the arrests, the chairman of the Churches National Safeguarding Committee, the Rt Rev Paul Butler, bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, said: "The Church of England takes any allegations of abuse very seriously and is committed to being a safe place for all. To this end we have robust procedures and policies in place.
"But we can never be complacent. We would like to urge any victims or those with information to feel free to come forward knowing that they will be listened to in confidence. We have also put support systems in place for all those involved with today's arrests. Should anyone have further information or need to discuss the personal impact of this news, the church has worked with the NSPCC to set up a confidential helpline number: 0800 389 5344."
The reality of Power.
Geoffrey Dickens MP was the scourge of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
This is from Hansard, the official transcript of Britain's Parliament
Quote:HC Deb 15 November 1982 vol 32 cc18-9W19W
§Mr. Dickens
asked the Prime Minister whether Geoffrey Arthur Prime's membership of the Paedophile Information Exchange organisation was brought to the attention of the police or security agencies.
§The Prime Minister
I understand that stories that the police found documents in Prime's house or garage indicating that he was a member of the paedophile information exchange are without foundation, and that nothing has been discovered to suggest that he was.
So, official denial from Thatcher.
Oops, here's the
Daily Telegraph....
Quote:Traitor Prime free after 19 years' jail
By Philip Johnston, Home Affairs Editor
12:00AM GMT 14 Mar 2001
THE traitor and paedophile Geoffrey Prime was released from prison on parole yesterday after serving half his 38-year sentence for betraying secrets to the KGB.
Prime, 62, who worked for the GCHQ intelligence-gathering centre in Cheltenham, was jailed in 1982. He would have been freed automatically two thirds of the way through his sentence in 2007, but prisoners are entitled to parole after serving half of their sentence if they show remorse.
Prime's freedom was agreed by the Parole Board after consultations between GCHQ and the Home Office. Officials judged that he was no longer a risk to national security. Prime was released from Rochester jail at 7am.
He started working for the KGB in 1968 while on RAF intelligence duties in West Berlin. It is thought that the Soviets learned of his paedophile activities and blackmailed him. He was persuaded to take a posting as a translator at GCHQ, where he had access to top secret codes and military frequencies.
He passed information to the KGB during regular visits to Vienna. The Soviet Union used his material to transmit dummy messages while real secrets were broadcast under different codes or sent by diplomatic bag.
His treachery is believed to have compromised Nato's contingency plans for defending Western Europe in the event of war. Moscow paid him a total of £8,000 before he was unmasked.
Prime was also a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange and had a card index of 2,287 young girls whom he targeted by phone. He will be placed on the sex offenders' register and is expected to live in a Probation Service hostel.
More from courageous reporter Eileen Fairweather:
Quote:I do not doubt men in smart cars preyed on boys but justice needs detective work, not trial by media
We need cool heads if the hundreds of victims of sex abuse, whose childhoods were corrupted and destroyed, are to receive justice
Daily Telegraph
By Eileen Fairweather
8:55PM GMT 09 Nov 2012
I have known for 20 years the inside story of the inquiry into the paedophile ring that, last month, the MP Tom Watson implied was shut down to protect a No10 aide in the Thatcher administration.
It did not involve Lord McAlpine, the former Tory treasurer, who was subjected to false rumours that linked him to the North Wales care home scandal. They were, Lord McAlpine said yesterday, ''wholly false and seriously defamatory''. It was, in fact, another aide to Margaret Thatcher. But I don't believe there is sufficient evidence for it to be legally safe or morally right to point the finger at this person either. Nor was it legally safe or morally right for the TV presenter Phillip Schofield to ambush the Prime Minister with a list of alleged Tory paedophiles pulled off the internet.
I have investigated child protection scandals in councils of all political hues, and I have learnt that child abuse is a cross-party crime. Liberals and socialists, not just Tories, must search their hearts and history if Britain's child abuse nightmare is to be solved.
I was dismayed this week to see child abuse turn into a party political football, and subjected to a "trial by Twitter". Our newspapers, too, appear to be dividing along such lines. Yet the scandal that led me to this inquiry, raised by Mr Watson, the Labour MP for West Bromwich East, during Prime Minister's Questions last month, stemmed not from a Tory cover-up but from the emerging New Labour establishment.
It was in the early 1990s I heard about the inquiry and met some of the police and social workers investigating it. At the time I was researching a paedophile ring that had infiltrated all 12 of the children's homes run by Islington council then led by Margaret Hodge and that appeared to be linked to it. Mr Watson was contacted in October by one of the inquiry's child protection experts, now retired. The coverage of the Savile scandal had awoken painful memories of how his evidence about Peter Righton, then a child care expert and children's homes consultant, was destroyed. He told Mr Watson: "My unit was closed down almost overnight and a manager took my files and burned them."
The investigation that Mr Watson described to a hushed Commons centred on Righton. The inquiry did involve names from the so-called establishment (though the Thatcher aide was linked by circumstances and hearsay). But what this inquiry also uncovered was the shocking attitude to abuse of some on the liberal Left and their involvement in it.
Righton was the former director of education at the National Institute for Social Work, and a consultant for the National Children's Bureau. Yet he was also a founding member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which wanted the age of consent reduced to four. Righton published essays justifying paedophilia, which he called no more mysterious than "a penchant for redheads".
PIE did not present themselves as child abusers but "child lovers", keen to "liberate" children from sexual "repression". Their literature hijacked the language of liberation to persuade gay men and women, feminists and radicals that they had common interests in challenging "the patriarchy". Their propaganda was skilful and it still reverberates. Some of Righton's colleagues fell for this and later admitted that they were scared to challenge his enthusiasm for sex with children lest they seem "anti gay". Many youngsters made serious allegations against Righton.
It wasn't until Customs and Excise intercepted child pornography posted to him from Holland, in 1992, that police raided his home and found hundreds of letters between him and other paedophiles, revealing he had abused, prostituted and shared numerous boys.
Righton's correspondents included an assistant bishop, artists, aristocrats and public school teachers. It then emerged that Righton's lover ran a school for emotionally disturbed children, and Righton was vice-chairman of governors. New Barns School in Gloucestershire, which was attended by many children from London care homes, was investigated and closed down on child welfare grounds.
A criminal trial followed and all eight staff including Righton's lover were cleared of charges of conspiring to falsely imprison. Another teacher was jailed for the sexual abuse of girls. But concerns could have been raised years before, if only a far-Left council in London had acted as it should have.
This week I thought of Liam, a boy in one of the Islington homes central to the paedophile ring's production of pornography. Liam attended New Barns School: the deputy superintendent, Nick Rabet (who committed suicide in 2006 after being arrested for abuse), used to drive him there.
Liam suffered such trauma in care that he had a breakdown at 16, and his memories today are fragmented. He began telling people of the abuse in 1989, three years before the school was closed. His social worker was deeply concerned, and promised action. But on Christmas Eve 1989, he disappeared and Liam's files disappeared with him.
Many Islington social workers "just" burned out, or were threatened or victimised and gave up. Islington council assured police investigating New Barns it had never sent children there because there was no evidence to the contrary.
And so to renewed allegations about the North Wales care homes. I do not doubt claims that men in smart cars took young boys from these homes in order to abuse them. But exactly who they were is another question, given the unreliable memories and limited knowledge of traumatised and ill-educated victims.
The Daily Telegraph this week rightly expressed weariness with endless inquiries, which achieve little. Old-fashioned detective work is what is needed.
Watson's whistleblower was told by a detective that the inquiry into Peter Righton's alleged ring was closed "from on high". Righton was given a £900 fine for his child porn imports, and a caution for a 30-year-old indecent assault. Many similar investigations into paedophile rings have also hit the buffers. Cover-ups have taken place; events and individuals demanding investigation were ignored.
Yet let us not lose perspective. Talking of paedophile rings that lead to No 10, without definitive proof, could jeopardise the momentum for reform as claims and counter-claims are made and libel actions are threatened or actioned. Following the closure of the Righton investigation, former Det Ch Supt Mike Hames, head of Scotland Yard's Obscene Publications Squad wrote: "We have only touched the tip of a huge national and international problem." Like most child protection experts, he wanted national teams to investigate such allegations. We still do not have them.
But trial by media is not the answer. We need cool heads and a non-partisan approach if the hundreds of victims, whose childhoods were corrupted and destroyed, are to receive justice.
Eileen Fairweather is an award-winning journalist whose investigations over 20 years have helped expose several paedophile rings
The reality of Power. Again.
Historic links between PIE and what is now "Liberty".
Quote:Affiliation to the NCCL
By 1978 PIE and Paedophile Action for Liberation had become affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties, now known as Liberty, with members attending meetings. The organisation campaigned against newspapers' treatment of the Paedophile activist groups. Whilst affiliated with NCCL, PIE also campaigned to reduce the age of consent and oppose the proposed banning of child pornography. In 1976, in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, the NCCL asserted that "childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage" and that the Protection of Children Bill would lead to "damaging and absurd prosecutions". Whilst PIE was affiliated with it, the organisation argued for incest to be decriminalised and argued that sexually explicit photographs of children should be legal unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered harm or that the an inference to that effect or to the effect that harm might have been caused could reasonably be drawn from the images themselves, with Harriet Harman (later deputy leader of the Labour Party) arguing that it would "increase censorship".[3] NCCL had excluded PIE by 1983.[4]
PIE and "Henderson" aka Sir Peter Hayman
Quote:[edit] Legal action against members
In the summer of 1978, the homes of several PIE committee members were raided by the police as part of a full-scale inquiry into PIE's activities; as a result of this inquiry, a substantial report was submitted to the Director of Public Prosecutions and the prosecution of PIE activists followed.
In particular, five activists were charged with printing contact advertisements in Magpie which were calculated to promote indecent acts between adults and children.
Others were offered lesser charges of sending indecent material through the mail if they testified against the five. These charges related to letters that the accused exchanged detailing various sexual fantasies. It eventually became clear that one person had corresponded with most of the accused but had not been tried. After the trial, it emerged that there had been a cover-up: Mr "Henderson" had worked for MI6 and been a high commissioner in Canada. Mr "Henderson" was later revealed via Private Eye to be Sir Peter Hayman. In 1981, Geoffrey Dickens MP asked the Attorney-General "if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail". The Attorney-General, Michael Havers (Baron Havers of St Edmundsbury, who represented the Crown in the trial and appeal of the Guildford Four and also of the Maguire family (known as the Maguire Seven), all of whom were wrongfully convicted) replied, "I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' (Sir Thomas Chalmers Hetherington QC) advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence."[5] Dickens asked, "How did such a potential blackmail risk come to hold highliy sensitive posts at the MOD and NATO?" He also asked the Leader of the House (of Commons) to investigate the security implications of diaries found in the diplomat's London flat which contained accounts of sexual exploits"[6] There was much debate and condemnation in the World's press of these events.[7]
Here is some of the Parliamentary nonsense and obfuscation that Geoffrey Dickens MP had to deal with.
Quote:HC Deb 19 March 1981 vol 1 cc139-40W139W
§Mr. Dickens
asked the Attorney-General if he will prosecute Sir Peter Hayman under the Post Office Acts for sending and receiving pornographic material through the Royal Mail.
§The Attorney-General
In 1978 a packet containing obscene literature and written material was found in a London bus. The subsequent police investigation revealed a correspondence of an obscene nature between Sir Peter Hayman and a number of other persons. Altogether a total of seven men and two women were named as possible defendants in the report submitted by the Metropolitan Police to the Director of Public Prosecutions.
The Director advised against prosecuting any of the nine persons either under section 11 of the Post Office Act 1953 or for any other offence. Among the considerations he took into account were the factors that the correspondence had been contained in sealed envelopes passing between adult individuals in a non-commercial context and that none of the material was unsolicited.
Subsequently the Metropolitan Police submitted a further report which revealed that one of the nine, not Sir Peter Hayman, was also carrying on a correspondence 140W with a tenth person. The police investigation showed that the two shared an obsession about the systematic killing by sexual torture of young people and children. In view of the extreme nature of the material they had sent each other, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided to prosecute them for conspiring to contravene section 11 of the 1953 Act. There is no evidence that Sir Peter Hayman has ever sent or received material of this kind through the post.
It has been suggested that Sir Peter Hayman was considered as a possible defendant following the police investigation into the conduct of the Paedophile Information Exchange which led to the recent trial at the Central Criminal Court for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. That prosecution was against persons alleged to have been involved in the management or organisation of PIE. Although Sir Peter Hayman had subscribed to PIE, that is not an offence and there is no evidence that he was ever involved in the management. At the recent trial, whilst there were general references to members of PIE, including, though not by name, Sir Peter Hayman, there was no reference to any material produced by him or found in his possession.
I am in agreement with the Director of Public Prosecutions' advice not to prosecute Sir Peter Hayman and the other persons with whom he had carried on an obscene correspondence.
The Director of Public Prosecutions and I remain determined that, where the evidence justifies it, prosecutions will be brought in cases involving sexual acts with children or offences under the Protection of Children Act 1978indecent photographs of children.
Quote:HC Deb 08 April 1981 vol 2 c298W298W
§Mr. Stokes
asked the Attorney-General, pursuant to his reply to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Dickens) on 19 March, Official Report, col. 13940, whether the Director of Public Prosecutions gave special treatment to Sir Peter Hayman by taking steps to prevent his indentity being revealed in court.
§The Attorney-General
No special treatment was afforded to Sir Peter Hayman and no steps were authorised or taken to protect his identity in evidence given to the court during the trial of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of Paedophile Information Exchange. I made this clear in answers I gave to the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price) on 6 April[Vol. 2, c. 68283.]to which I refer my hon. Friend.
Furthermore, although the indictment in that case was amended before trial, this was because Treasury Counsel had doubts, following a preliminary hearing, as to whether the wording of the original charges might, as a matter of law, be open to objection. The amendment did not arise from any wish to protect the indentity of any person.
The material of a pornographic nature found in the possession of Sir Peter Hayman was not relied on by the prosecution at the trial. There was, so far as the Director of Public Prosecutions is aware, no evidence whatsoever of Sir Peter Hayman having received or sent by post any obscene photograph of a child or young person or of his having taken such photographs or of his having committed any other act which might have been an offence under section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The mere possession of obscene material whether relating to children or adults is not in itself a criminal offence.
The Director's decision not to take proceedings under the Post Office Act against Sir Peter Hayman and others was taken in January 1979 before he received any papers relating to the activities of O'Carroll and other members of the executive committee of PIE.
Link to a 1981 Sunday Times news clipping about "Henderson" aka former UK High Commissioner to Canada Sir Peter Hayman and PIE.
Geoffrey Dickens MP talking in 1985 in the
House of Commons about the personal consequences of his campaign against PIE.
Quote:10.53 am
§Mr. Geoffrey Dickens(Littleborough and Saddleworth)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) on tabling this motion and on the delightful, kind and serious way in which he put his case. I am certain that he has added to the national debate on the subject. Back-Bench time is so precious that we are delighted that this subject has been chosen at a time when the nation is so angry.
Children face two great dangers. The first is the danger from adults who have a sexual attraction to children and who want a sexual relationship with them. Sadly, children are often killed as a result of that. The second danger is one that we have explored even more fully today. Youngsters may be injured or killed within their family unit by a parent, step-parent, common-law partner or simply a parent's casual lover.
I should like to think that I am speaking on behalf of 2 million parents who have signed petitions in support of my child protection campaign which has run for many years and for the thousands of parents who have written to me, pledging their support, putting forward ideas and providing a steady trickle of information leading to arrests and convictions.
I speak also for the little children and babies whose cries for mummy have to remain unanswered and for the 1134 little ones who are meant to be unheard by barbaric adults who mask their cries with cotton wool in the mouth, by closing a dark drawer or by wedging a door closed with wood. I speak for them all, so that their cries of anguish will be heard and they will not have died in vain. Out of their lives will come many important lessons.
Let me deal first with the adults who are obsessed with the thought of sexual relationships with children. They are evil and dangerous and, sadly, vast sums are exchanged for child-adult pornography. The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House. Hon. Members will understand that where big money is involved and as important names came into my possession so the threats began. First, I received threatening telephone calls followed by two burglaries at my London home. Then, more seriously, my name appeared on a multi-killer's hit list. So the threats went on.
Child pornography is evil for two reasons. First, children have to be procured to produce this disgusting material, be it a photograph or a video film, and, secondly, adults can be corrupted with this material into wanting and desiring the real thing. It cannot be right to allow to exist any organisations that interest themselves in adult sex with a child. It is alien to our way of life, our thinking and our family units. I still call for them to be proscribed in my Paedophilia (Protection of Children) Bill. We have smashed the organisation known as PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange. In its bulletin sent out to members it named my Bill, which has had its First Reading, as the reason for winding up the organisation. Some of its members are now in prison. Others have escaped to Holland, but we shall have them. However, other organisations are springing up and it is important that we should crush those in the same way.
Jan Klimkowski Wrote:Link to a 1981 Sunday Times news clipping about "Henderson" aka former UK High Commissioner to Canada Sir Peter Hayman and PIE.
Just imagine what can come through all those diplomatic pouches that have immunity and never see customs inspections?
Tears are not enough.
Sometimes only rage will do.
This outstanding piece of investigative journalism by Nick Davies, one of the scourges of the Murdoch empire, was published in 2000.
Note the involvement of members of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).
I have highlighted in bold the section referring to the extremely violent and sadistic paedophile, Warwick Spinks, although the entire article deserves to be read:
Quote:When sex abuse can lead to murder
Award-winning journalist Nick Davies concludes a series looking at the evils of paedophilia by confronting the grim mysteries of snuff movies. Today: The Amsterdam connection
Special report: child protection
Nick Davies
The Guardian, Monday 27 November 2000 01.20 GMT
A year after Bristol detectives finally started to unravel the ring of paedophiles who had been abusing children there for up to 20 years, they found an informant with an alarming story. The man, whom we will call Terry, had a long history of sexually abusing boys. He did not come from Bristol but, by chance, he had come across some of the paedophiles the detectives were investigating - in Amsterdam, where he said they had become involved with a group of exiled British child abusers who had succeeded in commercialising their sexual obsession.
The exiled paedophiles were trafficking boys from other countries; running legitimate gay brothels and selling under-aged boys "under the counter"; they had branched out into the production of child pornography. And they had killed some of them. One boy had simply been shot through the head, Terry said: he had been causing trouble and had been executed in front of several pae dophiles. Another, he believed, had been thrown into one of the canals. But the one about whom he spoke the most was a boy who had been tortured and killed in the most painful fashion in the course of producing a pornographic video.
Terry said he had seen most of the video himself and had vomited before he could reach the end. The few detectives who specialise in the investigation of child abuse invariably say the same thing about "snuff" movies: they have often heard of them, sometimes pursued them but never found one. The videos remain one of the great unsolved mysteries of the burgeoning underworld of international sexual exploitation.
Twice told tale
Terry's account was so hideous as to invite disbelief. It was clearly possible that he was inventing the story in an attempt to curry favour with the detectives as they turned over Bristol's paedophile subculture. And yet the detectives discovered that the allegation had been made before.
Not just once but repeatedly, evidence had come to the attention of police in England and the Netherlands, that, for pleasure and profit, some of the exiled paedophiles in Amsterdam had mur dered boys in front of the camera. Some of the evidence had been pursued. Some of it had been ignored. None of it had led to a murder charge. For a short while, the Bristol detectives thought they might be able to make progress in tracking down the truth; but when two of them flew to Amsterdam in the autumn of 1998 to pass on their information to Dutch officers, they hit a wall.
Terry had described the flat in Amsterdam where he had seen the video; he had named the owner of the flat who was, by implication, also owner of the video; he had provided the name of the man who carried out the killing; he had described events on the video in detail; he had provided the approximate age and the first name of the dead boy.
Dutch police said it was not enough: without the full name of a victim, they would not begin an investigation. Having fought their way through the swamp of inertia which surrounds British policing and prosecution of child abuse, the Bristol detectives had now hit the deeper swamp of virtual paralysis that afflicts its international policing. Within their own jurisdictions, there are now specialist paedophilia detectives - for example, in London and Amsterdam - who will work relentlessly to lock up predatory child abusers.
But when they try to move abroad, the potentially powerful machine starts to misfire. The result is that there is now a flourishing underground trade in boys who are being exported from the economic chaos of eastern Europe, as well as from the streets of London, to be put to work in the sex industry of western Europe. And no effective police operation to deal with it.
Predatory paedophiles cross whatever borders they like in order to pursue their obsessions; the police who might follow them are almost always trapped within their own narrow jurisdictions, partly by differences in law and procedure, partly because they lack the manpower and money to work internationally. There is an exception to this rule of parochialism, in the highly funded war against drugs, but in the perverse world of modern policing, the trafficking, rape and alleged murder of children has a far lower priority.
We have uncovered an international paedophile ring whose roots spring from Amsterdam, where, in the late 1980s, a group of British paedophiles set up a colony, exploiting the freedom of the city's gay community as cover to make a business of their fantasies.
Legal front
One of the first to do so was Alan Williams, the "Welsh Witch", who already had a vicious history of abusing boys in south Wales. Williams arrived in Amsterdam in 1988, aged 21, and soon set himself up as the manager of a gay brothel called Boys Club 21 at 21 Spuistraat, near the central station. Across the road at number 44, another British paedophile, a chubby Londoner named Warwick Spinks, then aged 25, was running a similar club called the Gay Palace. Both clubs had a legal business, running a bar and offering the services of adult male prostitutes.
But Williams and Spinks had much crueller interests. Williams had fled to the Netherlands after being convicted in Britain of indecent assaults on boys. In Amsterdam, he boasted of the day in south Wales when he had seen a 10-year-old boy on his bike, grabbed him, raped him, and, when he cried, strangled him. From Boys Clubs 21, he organised the importing of boys from Cardiff and London, inflicting intense violence on any who defied him.
Spinks had been running a mail order pornography business from Brighton, before he moved to Amsterdam, where he pioneered the trafficking of boys as young as 10 - first, from the streets of London, and, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, from the poverty of eastern Europe. Having brought them to Amsterdam, he used these "chickens" himself, sold them into the brothels or through escort agencies and put them in front of the camera. Some resisted, some ran away, but most were made to comply through the removal of their passports and doses of drugs and violence.
By 1990, these two clubs on Spuistraat, together with Boys for Men, De Boys, the Blue Boy and the Why Not, had become the busiest watering holes in the international paedophile jungle. Dutch police estimated there were 250 paedophiles involved in the production of child pornography in Amsterdam with an unknown floating population of child sex tourists from all over the world - and it was the British who formed the hard core consumers: Stephen Smith, who had helped to found the Paedophile Information Exchange, fled there when police in England prosecuted the organisation; Russell Tricker, now 58, a former private school teacher who was convicted of child sex offences in the UK, used his job as a coach driver to ferry suitable boys from London; John Broomhall opened a porn shop on Spuistraat and was caught with more than 1,000 copies of videos of under-aged boys; Mark Enfield, now 41, sold a video of himself abusing a drugged boy.
Alan Williams introduced two paedophile friends from Wales, John Gay and Lee Tucker, both of whom were to become central targets for Bristol detectives. The two men found they could sell Welsh boys into the clubs on Spuistraat and then make more money by investing in child pornography. They bought video equipment, set up TAG Films, and visited Amsterdam regularly to make films, which they sold through distributors in the US and Germany. At the time, Dutch law punished production of child pornography with a maximum sentence of only three months.
By October 1990, detectives on the old obscene publications squad at Scotland Yard were picking up worrying signals. An informant told them that someone called Alan Williams was trafficking boys into Amsterdam and that Williams had asked him to smuggle a child porn video back into the UK. Another informant told how he had smuggled a dozen tapes in the opposite direction: they had been produced, he believed, in north London, equipped with a bondage room for boys. He had delivered the tapes in Amsterdam to "Alan from Cardiff" at Boys Club 21. The informant said he had visited the Gay Palace across the road, where he watched videos of boys in bondage, aged 11 to 14, being buggered by masked men.
Soon, other informants were offering more detail. One man said he had seen Warwick Spinks selling a special video for £4,000. It showed a boy whom he thought was only eight or nine being sexually abused and tortured by two men. But the most startling allegations came from a gay man, "Frank", who had gone to Amsterdam in July 1990 and found himself caught up in this paedophile underworld. In 1993, he spoke to the same officers at Scotland Yard.
Frank told police that Warwick Spinks had invited him to come on a trip to the Canaries, where he had suggested Frank should help him sell videos and showed him a sample. Frank said he watched in growing horror as the video played out a murder - a boy who seemed to be no older than 12 was beaten and attacked with needles, before being castrated and cut open with a knife. The video seemed to have been shot in a barn, and detectives later learned that Williams and his friends had been talking about making a video in a barn that belonged to a German from one of the Spuistraat clubs.
Scotland Yard was in a difficult position: the informants were British and so was Spinks, who by this time had left Amsterdam and was living in Hastings, East Sussex. But everything else in the story was scattered round Europe. After long negotiations within Scotland Yard and with their counterparts in the Netherlands, the detectives set up Operation Framework, and, as the Guardian reported in 1997, they recruited an undercover officer to pose as a child abuser and befriend Warwick Spinks in England.
In a series of meetings, Spinks described how he picked up boys in Dresden, in Bratislava in the Czech Republic, and in Poland, where, he claimed, they cost only 10p. The undercover officer asked Spinks if he could get him a sado-masochistic video featuring boys as young as 10, and Spinks replied that he knew people in Amsterdam who could: "I know, well I knew, some people who were involved in making snuff movies and how they did it was, they only sold them in limited editions, made 10 copies or something, 10 very rich customers in America, who paid $5,000 each or something like that".
Spinks divulged no more about the video and failed to produce a copy of it. Without more evidence, Scotland Yard could not justify the expense of keeping the undercover officer or of sending officers to Amsterdam, where, in any event, they lacked police powers. They arrested Spinks in Hastings and charged him with adbucting and raping two homeless boys from the streets of London and selling one of them into a Spuistraat brothel. He was jailed for five years. But the allegation of murder would not go away. As the Guardian reported in 1997, another gay man, Edward, claimed to have seen five Amsterdam videos, each featuring the sexual torture and death of a boy. Dutch police investigated and said they could find no evidence.
Now, Terry had offered the Bristol detectives more evidence about life on Spuistraat. He explained how John Gay and Lee Tucker set themselves up as video pornographers, first taking a group of boys to an isolated farmhouse in France, and then making visits to Amsterdam to film with the boys there. And dealing with snuff movies he told how, in 1989, he had been alone in a flat which belonged to one of the key figures in the Amsterdam paedophile scene, whom he named; he had found a video and watched as it played out a murder - a boy was beaten before being castrated and cut open with a knife.
At first sight, Terry might have been describing the video Frank saw but its details differ: Frank described a video shot in a barn; Terry says his was shot in a flat. Frank described the abuse and murder of one boy; Terry says there was a second boy, who was also being abused and who was alive at the point he turned off the tape. And yet, the overlap is striking: the specific nature of the violence is identical; and Terry names the man who actually committed the killing - he is the same German whose barn was allegedly picked as a porn studio by the child porngraphers.
Terry, Frank, Edward and Spinks certainly mixed with the paedophile colony in Amsterdam in 1989/90 and all four separately claim at least one boy was killed on video. Spinks told the undercover officer that a German boy was killed; Frank says Spinks once hinted to him that a German boy named Manny had been murdered; we have confirmed from talking to boys who worked in Spuistraat at the time that a boy of that name and nationality, then 14, did disappear. Terry, however, says he thinks the victim of the video which he saw was Dutch, named Marco and probably 16.
Currying favour
At one end of the scale of possibility, every one of these men may be lying in an attempt to score favours with the police or to cause trouble for others on the Amsterdam scene, and certainly it was not unusual for boys to disappear from Spuistraat simply because they had had enough of being exploited.
At the other end of the scale, the truth is that one or more boys was killed in a snuff movie - and the murderers have got away with it.
The Bristol detectives can get no further. The Dutch say they will not investigate, and Avon and Somerset police have neither the funds nor the legal power to run their own inquiry in the Netherlands.
There have been successful paedophilia operations between British and European police. Scotland Yard detectives recently have twice arrested wanted men and extradited them to the Netherlands for trial on child sex offences. Within their borders, the Dutch paedophilia unit have arrested several of the key British paedophiles, and, since January 1996, the Netherlands has introduced a tougher law, which threatens up to six years for production of child pornography. The clubs on Spuistraat are no longer the paedophile playground they were. But the wider picture is of police trapped within their borders with the result that the European trade in boys for sexual exploitation has been allowed to grow without restraint.
A couple of years ago, I sat in the Blue Boy club on Spuistraat, amid the dry ice and the boys in thongs, and flicked through the catalogue on the bar, offering "truly the best boys in town", and watched a Japanese businessman make his purchase. In search of their origins, I went to Berlin, to the Bahnhof Am Zoo, where the trains arrive from all over eastern Europe, bringing the destitute in search of a dream. A specialist social worker there, Wolfgang Werner, told me there were some 700 east European boys, aged from 11 to 17, who had ended up in the sex industry in Berlin. But, to his knowledge, many hundreds of others had been taken off on a kind of underground railroad which fanned out to Zurich and Hamburg and Frankfurt, and, most of all, to Rotterdam and Amsterdam.
Werner told me, for example, about the Romanian boys who had been sold by their parents to a wandering Polish criminal, who had paid cash for some and a bottle of vodka for another, before putting them on to the streets of Berlin.
I followed the trail of two men, Peter Goetjes and Lutz Edelman, identified as traffickers in the Berlin press. Eventually, I spoke to a friend of theirs, who said that, of course, they had been trafficking. They must have sold 150 between them, before Goetjes was caught on the Polish border in the summer of 1992 with a boy in his boot. Goetjes was charged with smuggling, released on bail and then drove away and never came back for his trial. About that time, he and Edelman stopped trafficking, not so much because of Goetjes's arrest but because they had been told some of the boys were being used in snuff movies. Plenty of others carried on.
Unheeded warning
In May 1995, Bjorn Eriksson, then president of Interpol and chief of the Swedish police, told a conference on cross-border crime that organised paedophile networks were operating across European frontiers and as many as 30,000 paedophiles were believed to be linked to organisations or publications throughout Europe. His warning went unheeded.
In the late 1990s, trafficking of boys from Berlin to the Netherlands hit the north European press when police belatedly tried to find out what had happened to a 12-year-old Berliner, Manuel Schadwald, who went missing in July 1993. The Berlin police had simply listed him as a runaway. By 1997, however, Dutch journalists had dug out a history of sightings which suggested he had been put to work in a brothel in Rotterdam, run by a German, Lothar Glandorf, now 36. After ignoring complaints for 18 months, Rotterdam police targeted him and found he had been selling hundreds of boys. Of those they could trace, nearly half were under 16.
The Guardian has obtained an extraordinary report which was produced by Rotterdam police. It captures some of the ruthlessness of life in the city's boy brothels: "Even if Glandorf knew the perversions of a customer, he would still send a boy to a customer who had a preference for sado-masochism."
In the midst of all this, Rotterdam police were looking for Manuel Schadwald. Their report reveals three boys had run away from Glandorf's world and reported sighting the missing Berliner. Police logs leaked to a Dutch TV programme, Netwerk, reveal that one night, three Rotterdam surveillance officers saw Glandorf with a boy all three believed to be Manuel Schadwald but they failed to rescue him: they were reluctant to break cover for fear of jeopardising their operation. With the Dutch and German press baying for action, police in the two countries set about trying to find him - four years after his disappearance. They failed.
The same cross-border weakness persists. Investigating Glandorf, the Rotterdam police found that British paedophiles were routinely using his brothels, but they never sent a copy of their report to Scotland Yard. Glandorf had little fear of international policing. When a senior Dutch civil servant phoned him from Poland to say he was bringing back a boy, police phone taps recorded Glandorf saying: "When you get to the bridge at the border, let him out so he can go on foot so they can't catch you." That was all it took.
Within their borders, the Dutch did finally jail Glandorf for five and a half years, and yet the Amsterdam paedophiles remain relaxed. Some have resettled in Prague, where the law is lax. The trains still pull into the Bahnhof Am Zoo with their consignments of vulnerable children. The international boy business is alive and well, and, quite possibly, getting away with murder.
Identities of all police informants have been disguised
One would hope that Warwick Spinks was safely locked away in some medieval prison.
Nope this complete scumbag has been managing his sick empire as a free man for the past 15 years.
I wonder why he was arrested, by Czech police, this week?
It has been alleged that Spinks has links to the murderous elite paedophile ring identified in the Dutroux X-Files, and chronicled by ISGP, whose essential work is archived here on DPF.
Quote:16 November 2012 Last updated at 12:34
Warwick Spinks arrest: Child sex attacker back in prison
Warwick Spinks Warwick Spinks was convicted in 1995 of offences committed in Hastings
A violent child sex offender who fled the UK and went on the run for 15 years is back in jail after being arrested in the Czech Republic.
Warwick Spinks, 48, was arrested at Heathrow after being flown from Prague on Thursday, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) said.
CEOP said Spinks was convicted in 1995 at Lewes Crown Court of numerous sexual offences against boys in Hastings.
He was jailed for seven years, reduced to five years on appeal in 1996.
His offences included serious sexual assault at knifepoint, taking indecent images of children and taking a child without lawful authority.
International investigation
He was released on licence on condition that he was not allowed to leave the UK without permission.
He breached the conditions in 1997 and was recalled to prison, but went missing.
Following extradition from the Czech Republic he will serve the 18 remaining months of his sentence.
His arrest followed an international investigation involving officers from CEOP, the Metropolitan Police and the Serious Organised Crime Agency (Soca).
Spinks was arrested by Czech police in August 2012. He had been using numerous aliases , including Willem Van Wijk and William Spinks, CEOP said.
CEOP chief executive Peter Davies said Spinks was a high-risk child sexual offender.
"I hope this arrest sends a clear message to other missing child sexual offenders that however far you travel to avoid facing the consequences of your actions, we will track you down and bring you to justice," he said.