Paper's massive error of judgment over paedophilia

[Magda Hassan]

Ah, the hallowed 'objectivity' of the media.

Even Guardian readers are outraged by the paper's massive error of judgment over paedophilia

By Tim Stanley Society Last updated: January 4th, 2013
371 Comments Comment on this article



There's been a lot of comment in the past 24 hours about Jon Henley's article on paedophilia. Published by The Guardian under the headline, "Bringing Dark Desires to Light", it posed as a balanced consideration of what makes paedophiles tick.
The problem was less with content than with tone. Henley tried to bring "objectivity" to an issue the potential or literal abuse of children about which there is no reason to be objective. Tom Watson MP points out that Henley failed to quote the victims of abuse, preferring instead to interview experts and even a perpetrator one Tom O'Carroll, described as "a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation." Such a collection of sources might be appropriate for a peer-reviewed study distributed among cloistered psychiatrists, but for a newspaper report available to millions of non-experts it was stunningly tone deaf. When writing about something that is so morally outrageous in a national newspaper, any effort at balance actually advantages minority opinions because a) it gives them a platform they would otherwise not enjoy and b) it allows them a degree of equality of authority that they don't deserve. It would be like writing an article about the origins of the Holocaust and peppering it with quotes by David Irving claiming that it never happened. Not only would Irving be thrilled at the publicity (and for the freaks of society, any publicity is good publicity) but it would also encourage other anti-Semites to feel that their opinions are worthy of wider publication.
And there's evidence of that happening in the comments section beneath the article. Many, many readers write that they are shocked that The Guardian published Henley's piece in the first place. Some celebrate it as a victory for rational debate. But for a small group, it's become an opportunity to share their unwelcome views on the comments pages of a major media outlet. Tom O'Carroll reappears, engaging with readers and spreading his perverse gospel. Two sample quotes (others have been taken down by moderators):
I have read about half the comments here so far. A lot are thoughtful and interesting but what the debate is largely lacking is well founded information other than (from a handful of contributors) direct personal knowledge … Rather than rushing to conclusions such as "it's all about power abuse not sex", "they can't give meaningful consent", etc., it helps to look first at a range of evidence, including research based on adult-child sexual encounters that do not fit the stereotype that generally dominates the debate (such as it is: very one-sided).
For those of you who might be of the opinion that all paedophilic abuse is inherently "one-sided" and not exactly the stuff of romance, the public minded Mr O'Connor does share some tips on reducing incidents of rape:
There will always be abusers, but the more open our institutions are including the family the less abusive they will be. Children should be encouraged to speak up. The other side of the coin, though, is that they should be taken seriously when they say YES as well as NO.
It goes without saying that a child can never say "YES". But, then again, it has to be said because Henley's piece has now sparked a debate.
To be absolutely clear, Henley's intention was not to normalise paedophilia with this article. But by suggesting that the number of potential paedophiles is very high (1 to 2 per cent of males), by talking about gradations of sexual attraction, by stressing that Jimmy Saville can abuse adolescent girls without technically being a paedophile and by quoting the argument for a qualitative difference between paedophilia and child molestation, Henley ran the risk of letting some paedophiles think that "the time has come" for an honest discussion. Some or all of the above might true, but presented without emotional editorial comment it was open to being received in multiple ways. Another commentator writes this:
Hi, as a pedophile I think I might have something to say: We do not choose to be attracted to children, and we cannot make that attraction go away. But we can resist the temptation to abuse children sexually, and many of us present no danger to children whatsoever … We can, and DO lead productive, happy, law-abiding lives. We are unfairly treated as monsters, as predators. We are human beings. No one chooses to fall in love with a woman, or fall in love with a man, or a tree, or a furniture object, or a child. If you are the kind of people who like grown-ups, consider yourself lucky. But we are not "predators": most pedophiles would never sexually touch a child, and know their boundaries pretty well. Many pedophiles are not child molesters and in fact, detest those who harm kids.
This is a plea for tolerance to be shown towards something that is utterly undeserving of tolerance. To write that perverts "know their boundaries pretty well" isn't very reassuring, but this whole argument is a fiction anyway. What does it mean to be a paedophile unless you do want to "touch a child"? And if you did "touch a child" you would be harming them all of which is why having paedophilic desires is good grounds, at the very least, for isolation and treatment. The author of this comment claims that paedophiles "present no danger to children" and yet he also confesses to "sexual attraction" towards them. That poses more than just an existential threat. If someone wrote, "I have an overwhelming desire to rape every woman I see … but I promise not to do anything about it" would it be unreasonable to fear them?
The Guardian readers know what's going on, of course. Someone responds:
It's very interesting this article has attracted comments from a number of advocates for sexual abuse under the guise of being advocates for open-mindedness and empathy towards pedophilia. It's important to see how they argue, how they manipulate the facts, etc … Tthey present themselves as objective judges of what is "reasonable" and "rational" and "thoughtful" and open minded.
Bingo. This astute observation goes to the heart of what's wrong with the tone and the publication of Henley's piece. Not only has a space been open for debate about something that hardly needs debating, but it's also injected the misleading discourse of "reason" vs "hysteria" in to it. The constant call for "reason" can become a way of blinding us to certainly universal truths that don't require reason to resonate. Paedophilia revolts us partly on the intellectual grounds that a child cannot consent and so can only be abused. But it is also legitimate to feel an emotional response, and we shouldn't scorn those who display it. Paedophilia is, to use an old phrase, a crime against nature. It offends everything we feel about parenthood and innocence. It is an assault on everything fine and decent, and it ought only to generate feelings of disgust and shame.
In its pursuit of "open mindedness", Henley's article risked divorcing itself from that deep well of natural outrage. That's why so many were instinctively appalled by it and why so many have asked, "Has The Guardian's editorial staff lost its senses?"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timsta...edophilia/

[Jan Klimkowski]

I've added Henley's Guardian article in full below before it disappears.

In the mid-90s I investigated the British, American and Dutch academic networks that were openly advocating adult-child and man-boy sexual relationships. It was clear that a sexual libertarian agenda - essentially arguing that all kinds of sex be it heterosexual, homosexual, paedophile, sado-masochistic, bestiality should be legalised and cherished - was driving this supposedly academic work.

This agenda was often endorsed by "respectable" organisations such as the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) in the UK and the Kinsey Institute in America.

This agenda was directly driven in the UK by the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), which included spies, judges, diplomats and academics amongst its child abusing membership, and in the US the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

There are also cults such as The Children of God, and intelligence cutouts which procured children such as The Finders.

The extract I've italicised directly below is a crude sanitisation of that agenda.

Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Henley presents the paedophile professor O'Carroll as the victim of a sting, and accepts his assertion that children can consent to sex with an adult in a fashion which is non-abusive and exempt from any power locus at face value.

I've read many of the Dutch studies he cites. They are often written by adult males besotted with the "angelic beauty" of 12-14 year-old-boys, who ply them with gifts in exchange for sex, and claim that the adult is awakening the nascent sexuality of the child in the manner of an expert teacher.

The pseudo-academic tradition tracks directly back to "the father of sexology", Alfred Kinsey.

Tables 31-34 of the Kinsey Institute's "Sexual Behavior in the Human Male" are based on "experimental data" gained from 317 boys. Table 32 gives details of the speed of orgasm (timed with a second hand or stopwatch), whereas Tables 33 and 34 give details about multiple orgasms.

So, either children were sexually abused in a laboratory. Or, in the "defence" put forward by the Kinsey Institute, this tabulated "experimental data" is based on Kinsey's work with Clarence Osborne, a child abuser who had sex with some 2500 adolescent boys over a 20-year period, often in dingy backstreet rooms.

Here's Henley's disgraceful piece in The Guardian in full.

Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light

The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia - and even how much harm it causes


Jon Henley

The Guardian, Thursday 3 January 2013


In 1976 the National Council for Civil Liberties, the respectable (and responsible) pressure group now known as Liberty, made a submission to parliament's criminal law revision committee. It caused barely a ripple. "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in with an adult," it read, "result in no identifiable damage … The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage."

It is difficult today, after the public firestorm unleashed by revelations about Jimmy Savile and the host of child abuse allegations they have triggered, to imagine any mainstream group making anything like such a claim. But if it is shocking to realise how dramatically attitudes to paedophilia have changed in just three decades, it is even more surprising to discover how little agreement there is even now among those who are considered experts on the subject.

A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection, or with convicted sex offenders. There is, astonishingly, not even a full academic consensus on whether consensual paedophilic relations necessarily cause harm.

So what, then, do we know? A paedophile is someone who has a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children. Savile appears to have been primarily an ephebophile, defined as someone who has a similar preferential attraction to adolescents, though there have been claims one of his victims was aged eight.

But not all paedophiles are child molesters, and vice versa: by no means every paedophile acts on his impulses, and many people who sexually abuse children are not exclusively or primarily sexually attracted to them. In fact, "true" paedophiles are estimated by some experts to account for only 20% of sexual abusers. Nor are paedophiles necessarily violent: no firm links have so far been established between paedophilia and aggressive or psychotic symptoms. Psychologist Glenn Wilson, co-author of The Child-Lovers: a Study of Paedophiles in Society, argues that "The majority of paedophiles, however socially inappropriate, seem to be gentle and rational."

Legal definitions of paedophilia, needless to say, have no truck with such niceties, focusing on the offence, not the offender. The Sex Offenders Act 1997 defined paedophilia as a sexual relationship between an adult over 18 and a child below 16.

There is much more we don't know, including how many paedophiles there are: 1-2% of men is a widely accepted figure, but Sarah Goode, a senior lecturer at the University of Winchester and author of two major 2009 and 2011 sociological studies on paedophilia in society, says the best current estimate based on possibly flawed science is that "one in five of all adult men are, to some degree, capable of being sexually aroused by children". Even less is known about female paedophiles, thought to be responsible for maybe 5% of abuse against pre-pubescent children in the UK.

Debate still rages, too, about the clinical definition of paedophilia. Down the years, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders "the psychiatrist's bible" has variously classified it as a sexual deviation, a sociopathic condition and a non-psychotic medical disorder. And few agree about what causes it. Is paedophilia innate or acquired? Research at the sexual behaviours clinic of Canada's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health suggests paedophiles' IQs are, on average, 10% lower than those of sex offenders who had abused adults, and that paedophiles are significantly less likely to be right-handed than the rest of the population, suggesting a link to brain development. MRI scans reveal a possible issue with paedophiles' "white matter": the signals connecting different areas of the brain. Paedophiles may be wired differently.

This is radical stuff. But there is a growing conviction, notably in Canada, that paedophilia should probably be classified as a distinct sexual orientation, like heterosexuality or homosexuality. Two eminent researchers testified to that effect to a Canadian parliamentary commission last year, and the Harvard Mental Health Letter of July 2010 stated baldly that paedophilia "is a sexual orientation" and therefore "unlikely to change".

Child protection agencies and many who work with sex offenders dislike this. "Broadly speaking, in the world of people who work with sex offenders here, [paedophilia] is learned behaviour," says Donald Findlater, director of research and development at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child sexual abuse, and, before it closed, manager of leading treatment centre the Wolvercote Clinic. "There may be some vulnerabilities that could be genetic, but normally there are some significant events in a person's life, a sexually abusive event, a bullying environment … I believe it is learned, and can be unlearned."

Chris Wilson of Circles UK, which helps released offenders, also rejects the idea that paedophilia is a sexual orientation: "The roots of that desire for sex with a child lie in dysfunctional psychological issues to do with power, control, anger, emotional loneliness, isolation."

If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs on to the streets to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst. As a result, paranoia about the danger from solitary, predatory deviants far outweighs the infinitely more real menace of abuse within the home or extended circle. "The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim," stresses Kieran Mccartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.

The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."

Social perceptions do change. Child brides were once the norm; in the late 16th century the age of consent in England was 10. More recently, campaigning organisations of the 70s and 80s such as the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation were active members of the NCCL when it made its parliamentary submission questioning the lasting damage caused by consensual paedophilic relations.

Even now there is no academic consensus on that fundamental question as Goode found. Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

This is not, obviously, a widely held view. Mccartan uses O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: the Radical Case in his teaching as "it shows how sex offenders justify themselves". Findlater says the notion that a seven-year-old can make an informed choice for consensual sex with an adult is "just preposterous. It is adults exploiting children." Goode says simply: "Children are not developmentally ready for adult sexuality," adding that it is "intrusive behaviour that violates the child's emerging self-identity" and can be similar in long-term impact to adults experiencing domestic violence or torture.

But not all experts are sure. A Dutch study published in 1987 found that a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them. And a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

Most people find that idea impossible. But writing last year in the peer-reviewed Archives of Sexual Behaviour, Bailey said that while he also found the notion "disturbing", he was forced to recognise that "persuasive evidence for the harmfulness of paedophilic relationships does not yet exist".

If that assertion does nothing else, it underlines the need for more research on paedophilia something on which everyone in the field at least is agreed. There is, too, broad consensus around the idea that the approach to paedophilia must be about management and prevention: on stopping potential offenders making that contact (or downloading that image).

Initiatives such as Stop It Now!, which Findlater runs, exemplify this: a telephone helpline offering advice to people worried they may be having inappropriate sexual impulses. A similar German programme, Prevention Project Dunkelfeld, has as its slogan: "You are not guilty because of your sexual desire, but you are responsible for your sexual behaviour. There is help."

For convicted abusers, Circles UK aims to prevent reoffending by forming volunteer "circles of support and accountability" around recently released offenders, reducing isolation and emotional loneliness and providing practical help. In Canada, where it originated, it has cut reoffending by 70%, and is yielding excellent results here too. The goal of all treatment, Findlater says, is "people achieving a daily motivation not to cause harm again. Our goal is self-management in the future."

For Goode, though, broader, societal change is needed. "Adult sexual attraction to children is part of the continuum of human sexuality; it's not something we can eliminate," she says. "If we can talk about this rationally acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."

We can help keep children safe, Goode argues, "by allowing paedophiles to be ordinary members of society, with moral standards like everyone else", and by "respecting and valuing those paedophiles who choose self-restraint". Only then will men tempted to abuse children "be able to be honest about their feelings, and perhaps find people around them who could support them and challenge their behaviour before children get harmed".

This article was amended on 3 January 2012. The original incorrectly suggested that the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders was published by the American Psychological Association, and misspelled Dunkelfeld as Dunkenfeld.

[Jan Klimkowski]

As for Dutch "research" aimed at justifying paedophilia, a Wiki introductory article on Vereniging Martijn -a Dutch group with many similarities to NAMBLA and PIE, can be found here.

Amongst those similarities are the fact that the President of Vereniging Martijn was found to be in possession of large amounts of child abuse material and that a Catholic priest was a member of the organisation.

The group was founded in 1982 and legal until last summer:

On 27 June 2012, a Dutch court in Assen ruled that the group was illegal and ordered the group to cease activities and disband effective immediately. The judge stated that the groups actions and statements regarding sexual contact between adults and children was in conflict with the accepted norms of values of Dutch society. The judge went on to say these activities were against the law and damaged the integrity of children. According to the ruling, the Dutch state is not obliged to tolerate such actions. In his statement, the judge went on to reaffirm the overriding need to protect children.

[Jan Klimkowski]

From Henley's Guardian article:

a major if still controversial 1998-2000 meta-study suggests as J Michael Bailey of Northwestern University, Chicago, says that such relationships, entered into voluntarily, are "nearly uncorrelated with undesirable outcomes".

The link about Rind et al's meta-anlysis leads here.

The essence of the meta-analysis by Rind et al is as follows:

The authors stated their goal was to determine whether Child Sexual Abuse (CSA) caused pervasive, significant psychological harm for both males and females, controversially concluding that the harm caused by child sexual abuse was not necessarily intense or pervasive,[3] that the prevailing construct of CSA was not scientifically valid, as it failed empirical verification, and that the psychological damage caused by the abusive encounters depends on other factors such as the degree of coercion or force involved.[1] The authors concluded that even though CSA may not result in lifelong, significant harm to all victims, this does not mean it is not morally wrong and indicated that their findings did not imply current moral and legal prohibitions against CSA should be changed.

There are huge problems with this meta-analysis, ranging from the definitions used through the methodology adopted and statistical errors and onto the sample which consisted of college students (ie a select sample) and the use in the meta-analysis of "consensual peer experiences, sexual experiences that occurred during adulthood, and homosexual approaches during adolescence".

Rind et al claim that "[r]eviewers who are convinced that CSA is a major cause of adult psychopathology may fall prey to confirmation bias by noting and describing study findings indicating harmful effects but ignoring or paying less attention to findings indicating nonnegative outcomes". They then end up in the ridiculous position of "defend(ing) their deliberate choice of non-legal and non-clinical samples, accordingly avoiding individuals who received psychological treatment or were engaged in legal proceedings as a way of correcting this bias through the use of a sample of college students".

In other words, their claims that CSA does not generally cause harm is based on samples which exclude individuals who have been sufficiently harmed by CSA to claim psychiatric or legal help.

Finally, there's this:

In the years before the paper was written, both Rind and Bauserman had published articles in Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a journal which was dedicated to "[demonstrating] that pedophilia has been, and remains, a legitimate and productive part of the totality of human experience".[38] In addition, Dallam and Salter stated that Rind and Bauserman were keynote speakers at a pedophile advocacy conference occurring in the Netherlands.[38] Another article described Bauserman and Tromovitch's involvement as "[presenting] their meta-analytic findings to a group of clinicians in the Netherlands [and] Robert Bauserman (1989), had published an article in Paidika, a Dutch journal that had previously featured manuscripts tolerant of pedophilia".[

It's the False Memory Syndrome, an organisation created by abusers to cover up their abuse, all over again.

[Magda Hassan]

Tom Watson's response to Jon Henley's article. Some of the comments at the link are heartbreaking.

A response to Jon Henley's article on paedophilia

January 4th, 2013 |[/url]
Jon Henley had a piece in yesterday's Guardian, entitled [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/jan/03/paedophilia-bringing-dark-desires-light]"Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light". He's received a furious response on social media and I can see why. Many involved child protection will find it hard to see it as anything other than the commentariat's backlash, a contrarian response to a public outcry over recent revelations about child abuse by the rich and famous.
That may be harsh, and I felt a considered response was important. These thoughts are my own, but I have lent heavily on the work and advice of Dr Liz Davies, a leading academic in the field of child protection.
In a brief Twitter exchange, Jon pointed me to the final two paragraphs of his article. Quoting senior lecturer Sarah Goode he writes, "If we can talk about this rationally acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don't have to act on it we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won't label paedophiles monsters; it won't be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us."
The sub-heading for the article claimed: "The Jimmy Savile scandal caused public revulsion, but experts disagree about what causes paedophilia and even how much harm it causes"
My main argument against this article is that this approach ignores the evidence of the experiences of abused children, the experiences of adult survivors of child abuse and the experiences of many professionals who work to protect children. It is a risky strategy at the current time because so many of those who promoted the rights of the paedophile' have in later years been convicted of sexual crimes against children. Equally, so many of those whom this lobby attacked have been vindicated in their efforts to protect and gain justice for children and survivors.
For Jon, the current public discourse is hindered because of moral panic around child abuse. Saying "If the complexity and divergence of professional opinion may have helped create today's panic around paedophilia, a media obsession with the subject has done more: a sustained hue and cry exemplified by the News of the World's notorious "name and shame" campaign in 2000, which brought mobs to the streets, to demonstrate against the presence of shadowy monsters in their midst."
Defining moral panic this way with respect to the sexual abuse of children is shows a failure to understand the term. Stanley Cohen, author of "Folk Devils and Moral Panics" defines moral panic as "when a condition, episode, person or group emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests. Those who start the panic fear a threat to prevailing societal values". Opposing the sexual abuse of children and upholding their human rights doesn't fit this definition. Prevailing societal values are not under threat by those who challenge child sexual abuse because this society clearly legislates and upholds the rights of children to be protected from harm and all forms of abuse. The concept of a moral panic' is an academic argument being exploited to attack those who are striving to protect children from harm. They would never say that those who oppose racism are part of a moral panic so why apply it to those who oppose childism (to borrow an "ism" from the experts)?
The part of the article that concerns me most is where it touches on the experiences of the liberation campaigns of the1970′s saying: "The reclassification of paedophilia as a sexual orientation would, however, play into what Goode calls "the sexual liberation discourse", which has existed since the 1970s. "There are a lot of people," she says, "who say: we outlawed homosexuality, and we were wrong. Perhaps we're wrong about paedophilia."
The Paedophile Liberation Front and Paeodphile Information Exchange emerged also in the 70s. It is wrong though to suggest that everyone around at that time agreed with the extension of the rights' movement into including a child's right to sex' with adults. This was definitely not the case. These groups were always on the very margins of the freedom and civil rights movements. Some of this pro-paedophile lobby, though, infiltrated academia and professional circles including the children's charter and rights movement. Brian Taylor's book "Perspectives on Paedophilia" (1981), the most depressing on my Christmas reading list, is one of the main examples of professionals who promoted this view. Some of the contributors were subsequently convicted for sexual crimes against children as was Tom O'Carroll, author of the "Radical Case for Paedophilia" (1980). Peter Righton, in Taylor's book, wrote about boys expressing appreciation for the consideration and attention they received which they rarely got in their own homes and most felt they benefited. He was convicted in 1992 of importing and possessing abusive images of boys.
These claims, bogus of course, are perhaps why people were so angry at Jon Henley's comment piece. The very fact that a respected features writer on The Guardian lent his authority to a number of pseudo-intellectual claims like these is deeply upsetting to many who campaign to expose child abuse as Britain's hidden scandal.
Here are further examples of how leading writers of the time were captured by the language of liberation:
Cambridge criminology Professor, Donald West, author of "Children's sexual encounters with adults. A scientific study" wrote about paedophiles coming out' in the late 70s, which aroused a "witch hunt" against paedophiles:
"there is an urgent need to distinguish between those adults who use force to obtain sexual contact with children and those who do not, as well as between children who just endure what is done to them and those who actively participate in sexual relationships with adults'.
"This study is concerned with adult sexual experiences with children.. its central aim is to give voice to the viewpoint of the paedophile".
He criticises the prevalence statistics stating that they mainly include "relatively innocuous advances". He also states that it is "unwise to overdramatise institutional abuse" as many boys "did not take the behaviour at all seriously or felt the need to make a formal complaint."
Ralph Underwager was a high profile US consultant psychologist to the Cleveland Inquiry. He was exposed as contributing to a Dutch Paedophile magazine Paidika (1993) in which he wrote "Paedophiles should become much more positive. The should directly attack the concept, the image, the picture of the paedophile as an evil, wicked, and reprehensible exploiter of children". He went on to say:
"Paedophiles need to become more positive and make the claim that paedophilia is an accceptable expression of God's will for love and unity among human beings".
No wonder many more enlightened academics like Dr Liz Davies talk of the "child sex abuse lobby". She argues some academic writings have to be located in the context of what is known about those who spread those viewpoints and their agendas. Their views were clearly expressed in a document dated 1975 where Paedophile Information Exchange submitted evidence to the Home Office.This proposed abolition of the age of consent and the removal of consensual sexual activity at all ages from the criminal law.
Jon Henley goes on to make a number of other claims that deserve further challenge. They are listed in bold:
A liberal professor of psychology who studied in the late 1970s will see things very differently from someone working in child protection or with convicted sex offenders.
If there is such a person, daring to call themselves liberal' then I would want to know why they have not developed their thinking since the 70s to understand the dynamics of child sexual abuse and of child sexual abusers in a context of prevalence studies, survivor accounts and research, academic research and the findings and recommendations from hundreds of Inquiries. I cannot imagine why a Professor would want to situate themselves as seeing things differently from someone working in child protection. This would imply that they are confidently situating themselves outside the law, policy and practice guidance relating to the safety of children from sexual crime and abuse.
The vast majority of sexual violence is committed by people known to the victim, stresses Kieran McCartan, senior lecturer in criminology at the University of the West of England. Only very rarely is the danger from the "stranger in the white van", Mccartan says.
It is commonly stated that most abuse of children is by the family or by people well known to the child. That is almost certainly true. But Dr Liz Davies argues that we do not have full statistics of abuse of children by strangers' e.g. the children who go missing and are never found are not counted by anyone and abductions do not count within the child sex abuse statistics. If there is one point we can learn from the Savile expose it is that it highlights the extent of stranger' abuse. This is very important too.
MAPPA statistics do not differentiate between sex offending against adults and those against children which makes analysis difficult because the numbers of known offenders against children are not easily accessed. There is also substantial under-reporting of all forms of child abuse. It is important to compare prevalence statistics, such as NSPCC research citing that nearly a quarter of young adults experienced sexual abuse during childhood, with the numbers of children subject to a protection plan for child sexual abuse which, in 2012, were just 2300 in England and Wales. Where are the statistics of children illegally adopted, children trafficked for domestic and sexual exploitation, children who are victims of the "global industries of child abuse" such as online abuse and abusive images? All these forms of child sexual abuse are under-reported and largely absent from the official statistics.
…a sample of boys in paedophilic relationships felt positively about them
In order to sexually abuse a child a perpetrator will often groom the child and so it is not uncommon for a child to have some positive feelings towards the person harming them. The perpetrator may also be someone who is close to them and the child wants the abuse to stop but does not want to lose the relationship. This is no way suggests that the abuse is justifiable. In fact a state of confused emotions and responses adds to the severity of the trauma experienced by the child. That this is not obvious to Jon Henley is alarming to me.
Whether or not a child voluntarily entered into sexual relations with their abuser, and how positive or negative they felt about it at the time, is irrelevant when it comes to both the long-term effects of child sex abuse, and how seriously we should treat the abuse. Even if it is true that for some survivors of this type of consensual abuse there were no "undesirable outcomes" (though this is surely hard to quantify), this is certainly not true for all, or even many, if any, children who entered into abusive relationships voluntarily; and to draw a distinction between children who were violently abused and children who submitted willingly is irresponsible and damaging when children who submitted willingly are already more likely to feel shame, self-blame and not seek help due to their belief it was their own fault.
I hope Jon Henley reflects on how his features piece has, inadvertently I'm sure, lent credibility to bogus claims about child abuse that make it harder for policy makers to act decisively. In the few short weeks I've been looking at this subject, I know that we are failing children today. We have to act with boldness and at scale. I'm talking to colleagues about what Labour's future policy in child protection might look like. I hope to talk to colleagues from other parties also.

Survivors of child sex abuse commonly suffer from depression, anxiety disorders, panic attacks, phobias, flashbacks, disturbing thoughts, intrusive memories, self-harming, alcoholism, eating disorders, and feelings of shame, anger and worthlessness. This is the reality, but Jon Henley doesn't voice it in his piece.

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2013/01/6445

[Jan Klimkowski]

Let's look at how Henley presents Tom O'Carroll, former Chair of the Paedophile Information Exchange and convicted child abuse imagery peddler:

Some academics do not dispute the view of Tom O'Carroll, a former chairman of PIE and tireless paedophilia advocate with a conviction for distributing indecent photographs of children following a sting operation, that society's outrage at paedophilic relationships is essentially emotional, irrational, and not justified by science. "It is the quality of the relationship that matters," O'Carroll insists. "If there's no bullying, no coercion, no abuse of power, if the child enters into the relationship voluntarily … the evidence shows there need be no harm."

Now let's look at O'Carroll in his own words:

In 1980 O'Carroll's book Paedophilia: The Radical Case was published, in which he advocates the normalization of some adult-child sexual relationships. In the book, O'Carroll states his belief that each stage of the sexual relationship between an adult and child can be 'negotiated', with "hints and signals, verbal and non-verbal, by which each indicates to the other what is acceptable and what is not... the man might start by saying what pretty knickers the girl was wearing, and he would be far more likely to proceed to the next stage of negotiation if she seemed pleased by the remark."

So an adult man tells a girl she's wearing pretty knickers as part of a "negotiation" towards a sexual relationship with that child.

And Henley holds that O'Carroll's views are worthy of serious academic and public consideration.

Now let's examine Henley's claim about O'Carroll falling foul of a "police undercover sting", which makes it look like O'Carroll was set up.

Here's the Met Police press release:

Men jailed for making and distributing indecent images of children

20 December 2006


A high-profile paedophile activist and a man who possessed the widest range of abusive material known to the Met have today been sentenced to imprisonment at Middlesex Guildhall Crown Court.

Thomas Victor O'Carroll was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment and will be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years.


"The guilty pleas of O'Carroll and Studdert are an example of how patience, tenacity and the commitment of the Met's Paedophile Unit paid dividends in this investigation"

Michael John De Clare Studdert was sentenced to four years imprisonment for making and downloading indecent images, two years for distributing indecent images and three years for possession of indecent images. All sentences are to run concurrently. The judge ordered that he be placed on the Sex Offenders Register for life and he is also subject of a Sex Offences Prevention Order, which prohibits him from owning a computer or machinery, which allows him access to the Internet.

61-year-old Thomas Victor O'Carroll, an out of work journalist and 67-year-old Michael John De Clare, a retired Anglican minister, were arrested in January 2006 after the Met's Paedophile Unit conducted a series of co-ordinated searches and arrests.

O'Carroll is a high-profile activist who has campaigned to legitimise certain aspects of paedophilia and was the chairman of the now defunct Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) in the UK. He has latterly been a member of the International Paedophile Child Emancipation forum (IPCE).

The purpose of IPCE is to promote 'scholarly discussion' with the aim of changing legislation to decriminalise aspects of child abuse. The operation also disrupted IPCE, whose members are predominantly in mainland Europe, but also extend around the globe.

The arrests of O'Carroll and Studdert were the result of a lengthy covert operation by the Met's Paedophile Unit, codenamed Glenlivet, which commenced in the summer of 2002. In the summer of 2005, O'Carroll travelled from his then home in Shildon, County Durham to visit Studdert, an associate who was at that time living in Hindhead, Surrey.

O'Carroll collected a cache of indecent material of children from Studdert, which he had left there for safekeeping, and then drove to another part of the country to give the material to another associate. Unbeknown to O'Carroll, the other associate was an undercover police officer.

During the arrest phase of the operation, a search of Studdert's extensive country home, and some 17 acres of grounds, uncovered two highly sophisticated hidden compartments within his bathroom One was hidden behind a false wall by the bath and the other was hidden in the eves of the house and accessed by a secret door opposite the toilet. The 'hides' contained a massive hoard of indecent images of children, believed to be his lifetime's collection, with images from the 1950's to modern day in a variety of formats.

The formats included videos, photographic slides, cine films, photographs, magazines and photographic negatives. In terms of formats it was the widest ranging personal collection of abusive material known to the Metropolitan Police Service ever attributed to one person.

On 21 September 2006, O'Carroll pleaded guilty to three charges and Studdert pleaded guilty to twenty-six charges of possession, making and distribution of indecent images of children and both appeared at court today in custody.

The Senior Investigating Officer on the case, Acting Detective Chief Inspector Neil Thompson of the Met's Paedophile Unit said:

"The guilty pleas of O'Carroll and Studdert are an example of how patience, tenacity and the commitment of the Met's Paedophile Unit paid dividends in this investigation. O'Carroll and Studdert posed a risk to children both in the UK and abroad and today's sentencing will ensure that further children are safeguarded against such prolific paedophiles."

A police "sting"?

I can think of few police investigations which are more prima facie laudable than this one.

To be specific, the material seized is not "child pornography", a wholly misleading and inappropriate term. The material seized represented a lifetime of abuse of hundreds, possibly thousands of children:

During the arrest phase of the operation, a search of Studdert's extensive country home, and some 17 acres of grounds, uncovered two highly sophisticated hidden compartments within his bathroom One was hidden behind a false wall by the bath and the other was hidden in the eves of the house and accessed by a secret door opposite the toilet. The 'hides' contained a massive hoard of indecent images of children, believed to be his lifetime's collection, with images from the 1950's to modern day in a variety of formats.

The formats included videos, photographic slides, cine films, photographs, magazines and photographic negatives. In terms of formats it was the widest ranging personal collection of abusive material known to the Metropolitan Police Service ever attributed to one person.

The Guardian allows Henley to present O'Carroll and the pro-paedophile advocates as legitimate researchers...

NEVER ENDING SHAME.

I note, with a complete absence of surprise, that O'Carroll's partner in crime was, yet again, a man of the cloth.

[Jan Klimkowski]

An online search will reveal the text of:

GLENN D. WILSON AND DAVID N. COX
The Child-Lovers
A Study of Paedophiles in Society

This book was published by Peter Owen in 1983. Academics Wilson and Cox approached O'Carroll as Chair of PIE, and he sent a series of questions to members of PIE.

Amongst many other matters, this revealed:

Occupation

The main occupational groups of the 77 PIE members are shown in Table 3. A fairly
high proportion of the sample were in professional-level occupations (a higher
proportion than for the British population at large). Particularly interesting is the fact
that many were in professions that would bring them into regular contact with children
(e.g. teacher, social worker).

Presumably they gravitated towards these occupations because of their liking for the
company of children. To what extent they take sexual advantage of these positions of
responsibility is not answered by these data. Three subjects reported that they were no
longer able to pursue the occupation of their choice and training following discovery of
their paedophile interests or actual court proceedings. Even so, the proportion who
were unemployed or unable to hold down a job appeared to be quite low (given the
high level of unemployment in Britain at the time of the study). Perhaps an organisation
such as PIE, with intellectual aims and pretensions, is more visible and appealing to
well-educated paedophiles than to those at lower occupational levels.

TABLE 3
Occupations of 77 PIE Members

Professionals 38% N %
Teacher 10 13
Lecturer 2 3
Social worker nurse 3 4
Student 3 4

Other professionals 11 14

White collar 35%
Clerk/civil servant 16 21
Engineer/technician 5 6
Sales 6 8

Blue collar 14%
Skilled workers 4 5
Unskilled workers 7 9
Unemployed 6 8
Not given 4 5


Age
Figure 1 shows the age distribution of the PIE men who answered the
questionnaires. Although the modal age range is between 35 and 40, there is a fair
representation of all age groups between 20 and 60. No subjects were under 20, and
only two were older than 60. This age profile is rather younger than that found for
members of clubs for fetishists, sadomasochists and transvestites (Gosselin and Wilson,
1980).



Sex and age of preferred partners

The majority (71 per cent) of the sample said that they were mainly attracted to
boys, 12 per cent preferred girls, and 17 per cent were attracted to both boys and girls.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of ages of ideal partners. There is a fairly clear peak at
the years immediately preceding puberty in boys (12, 13 and 14). Rather surprisingly, a
few subjects claimed to prefer partners over the age of 16. Although still illegal in
Britain (the age for homosexual male consent being 21), this would not qualify as
paedophilia in the definitions of many researchers and clinicians. They may, of course,
regard themselves as paedophiles because the age range of partners to whom they are
strongly attracted extends downwards several years.

The preferred age of partners for the minority who were attracted mainly to girls was
noticeably younger than that of the boy-oriented men. Here the ages of 8, 9 and 10
were most frequently cited as optimally attractive. The preference for younger females
is confirmed by two bisexual subjects who gave separate optimal ages for boy and girl
targets. In both cases, girls were found attractive at an age two or three years younger
than boys.

The theoretical significance of this difference is not clear, although it may have
something to do with earlier puberty in girls. A certain degree of attraction to welldeveloped
thirteen-and fourteen-year-old girls is very common, if not endemic, in the
male population. Certainly, many readers may wonder why the man who described his
ideal target as sixteen-year-old girls should regard himself as a paedophile at all.
8

So, amongst the PIE members who agreed to answer the questions of the academics, a significant proportion were educated professionals, many with access to children in their work environments, and their sexual preference was for boys aged between 12-14 and girls between 8-10 years old.

Later, we find the following:

TABLE 13

Ways in which 77 paedophiles characterise
their relationships with children

Affectionate, loving, gentle, etc. 22
Deep, intimate, close 3
Non-sexual, platonic friendship 19
Fatherly 3
Genital sexuality involved (whether manual, 18
oral or anal)
Sexual relationships overseas only 4
Fleeting, casual, playful 5
Long-term 7
Professional (payment made to child) 3
Spanking involved 2
None 5

TABLE 14

Nature of relationships with children
(Selected quotations)
S16 Very close affectionate relationships with a number of boys, never
sexual. Always friends' children. I like to cuddle them, and they obviously
like it too.'
S19 As a teacher - many and varied. Personal relationships tend to be
good (or I wouldn't be much use as a teacher). Sex has occurred, but very
rarely, and usually with a child that is deprived in some way, and has a need
for love.'
S21 Sexual and platonic. Sometimes just sex; sometimes platonic.
Sometimes both. I had a relationship with a boy which lasted 5 years. He
seemed not to have suffered. He is now engaged!'
S23 I have teased, kissed, spanked girls, but it is quite a dangerous
hobby. Parents get angry. I have been privileged to kiss girls on the area
usually covered by knickers.'
S24 One sexual with a girl of 9 whose father had left the family. She
was starved of affection and attention. It was close and loving without
being sexual until one evening she asked me to touch her "like my little
brother does". A happy sexual relationship ensued for six months until the
family emigrated (2 more relationships).'
S34 All my relationships start by being friends; then to being physically
close, i.e. cuddling and then, under the right circumstances, if the boy is
willing, on to sex.
S35 Usually hopeless romantic yearning for a particular boy, sometimes
accompanied (given the social opportunity) by his friendship, but no sexual
initiatives on either side. Small amount of casual masturbatory sex with
several boys.'
22
S39 As a teacher, all sorts of relationships, but outside school several
"affairs" of a sexual nature with various boys; not only sexual but
emotional as well.'
S40 Usually founded on activity group work with children. Simply
being an affectionate, concerned and lively adult for them. Playing, telling,
listening, and answering questions.'
S45 Loving, caring ones, or if you are referring to physical activities,
then mutual and unilateral masturbation, kissing, cuddling, etc.'
S46 I had passionate and emotionally intense relationships with six
boys of 14/15 when I was teaching in a boarding school between 1957 and
1963. Sexual activity was frequent and reciprocally enjoyable, but the
affection was more important to me. Since then I have had only one shortlived
sexual relationship with a boy of 15, though I have had (and have) a
number of intense friendships with boys between 13 and 17 which have not
involved sexual activity.'
S60 Quite a few emotional encounters, most of short duration, one or
two lasting over a period of months; only two sexual contacts - one
continuing on and off for nearly a year, the other lasting for about 11
weeks. Passive gentle relationships cuddles, kisses, stroking of legs, etc.
No masturbation (passive or active), no genital fondling. Have achieved
orgasm through frottage.'
S62 A number of sexual relationships (}100) lasting 6 months to 10
years, some into adulthood. About one quarter had a sexual element.'
S71 Very pleasant ones. In some cases sexual, but outside the U K.
Generally as a sort of brother/father benefactor type with disadvantaged
kids. One unpleasant experience of blackmail.'
S77 Kissing, cuddling, mutual masturbation, some oral, and anal sex.
My last affair with an English boy lasted five years, he is now married, both
him and his wife live with me, his wife knows of the relationship we used
to have, and understands.'

And more:

TABLE 17

Desired behaviour if legal sanctions removed (main categories of
response)

Give love, affection, protection, etc. 14
Engage in sexual activity, provided child agreeable 13
Same as now, but more openly 8
Cohabit or form lasting relationship 6

TABLE 18

Desired behaviour if legal sanctions removed
(Selected quotations)

S4 I would like to develop a relationship of loving, unselfish affection
and allow the child to express himself as his needs dictated. I know from
experience that in most cases, in trusting me, nature would take its course
and sex play would occur.'
S5 Date and meet children, take them out and enjoy each other's
company. Make them happy. Be with them as long as possible.'
Sl0 Have a boy live with me until an independent age whilst I take on
role combining elements of father, brother, friend, as well as lover. I would
certainly want to sleep with him regularly.'
26
S1l Adopt two boys and one girl with no sexual motive but that of
being a responsible father.'
S14 No more than I do already. Buggery does not appeal, merely
fondling, masturbating and more important, general love.'
S19 Anything that seemed wholesome and natural, including sexual
activity, though this would be a comparatively rare occurrence. What the
child wants to do with me is an equally relevant question.'
S29 Be able to befriend without fear. Be able to allow that friendship to
develop naturally along the paths it wanted to take.'
S32 First maintain my present marriage and then, if my wife agreed,
enjoy a normal, natural, affectionate, loving relationship with a boy
involving free sexual expression by him and by me of every kind with one
or two chosen boys who shared my views and interests preferably with
nights spent in the same bed; frequent sexual adventures and some carefree
out-of-doors nudity.'
S35 Fellatio with boys, cunnilingus with girls. Not really interested in
child touching my genitals - never think about it. Nor do I think about
intercourse, though I get very turned on by porn films depicting it. Like to
watch children either homosexually or heterosexually involved with each
other.'
S39 The law is mostly irrelevant; I would not want to do anything
different to what I do now if the law were changed, except that I wouldn't
have to be so secretive or careful.'
S46 Kiss and hug boys in the age range which most attracts me, and
engage in mutual masturbation and fellatio with them. I have no wish for
anal intercourse. The complete consent indeed eagerness of the boy
would be essential.'
S45 Love, care for and protect them (the homeless, parentless, or
unwanted would be sufficient). Sleeping with as many as desired it (which
would still be a very large number).'
S49 Make more friends. Take them to movies, restaurants, the zoo.
Help them with school work. Enjoy each other's company. Love them.'
S53 That would depend on what the child needed from me. Casual sex
is out - as I need to know the person first. But mutual masturbation, fellatio,
possibly anal intercourse.
S56 I would endeavour to have sex with them, to seduce them, if I
found them attractive, and they were willing. I could be content with very
little. The burden of guilt feelings is greater than the frustration of
unexpressed sex.'
S67 To be their confidant and "anchor" friend and to give them a
feeling of security and to love them in whatever way they demanded of
me.'

Finally, here are some of the pseudonymised case studies:

No. 7 Rex':
The most interesting feature of Rex's life is that he is the only paedophile we interviewed who
is married. His wife was aware of his paedophilic interests when she married him. He provided
us with a classic remark in commenting that he has come to realise that paedophiles need a good
travel agent rather than a psychiatrist, which seems fairly perceptive in view of the legal
restrictions that exist in some countries while not in others. In his work Rex occupies a position
of some status, and the professional attitude that he must have to display there carried over to the
interview.


No. 12 Adam':
What was most obvious about Adam was his enthusiasm in discussing his paedophilic
interests. More than any of the others interviewed, he seems to have declared openly his love for
children, and he does not hesitate to express it when the opportunity arises, as it did in this
situation. Subsequent to the interview, Adam contacted us to let us know that criminal
proceedings had been brought against him and if we did not hear from him by a specific date
then we should assume that he had been convicted and sentenced to prison. We did not hear from
him again.


No. 55 Peter':
Peter was concerned that we should be given the whole' picture with respect to paedophilic
behaviour and following his initial interview contacted us to see if he might come in again to
provide us with more information, which he did. He appeared to be very much at ease discussing
the paedophilic lifestyle, and he described in some detail the international scene, particularly as it
occurs in countries where age of consent is not a factor, as in the Philippines. He gave the
impression of being a travel agent for his paedophilic friends as his work in the airlines allows
him to travel extensively and investigate circumstances in other countries. He came to the second
interview with pictures, most of which he had taken himself, to give us examples of the types of
boys he found attractive.

[Jan Klimkowski]

Here is a link to Tom O'Carroll's forum.

I note the subject headings on the right with disgust:

Related Forums
Writer Forum
Pedophilia Forum
Pedophilia advocacy Forum
Child pornography Forum
Paedophile Information Exchange Forum
IPCE Forum
Indecent photograph of a child Forum
Qatar Forum
Michael Jackson Forum
Metropolitan Police Service Forum
June 1 Forum
2006 Forum
December 20 Forum
Richard Green Forum
After Dark (TV series) Forum
Helena Kennedy Forum

[Jan Klimkowski]

More PIE for Henley:

A paedophile who campaigned for the age of consent to be lowered was today jailed after a collection of hardcore child pornography was found at his home.

David Arthur Joy, 66, was a member of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an international organisation which believed that children were sexual beings in their own right.

The former teacher had pleaded guilty at Leicester crown court to 11 counts of making or possessing indecent images of children in April this year.

Today he was handed an indeterminate prison sentence and told he must serve a minimum of 18 months before he can be considered for parole.

But the judge, Michael Pert QC, said that given Joy's beliefs, that day "may never come".

He added: "It's clear that you hold firmly to a set of beliefs involving sexual activity with adults and children.

"Those beliefs are wholly in variance to the views held by most members of society, views that most of society would find abhorrent."

The PIE made national newspaper headlines in the early 1980s when members faced charges of publishing and sending obscene articles through the post.

The practice caused widespread concern and MPs lobbied the then home secretary, Leon Brittan, to ban the group.

Last year, as part of coordinated raids on the remaining members of PIE, officers from Scotland Yard's paedophile unit swooped on Joy's one-bedroom flat in Loughborough, Leicestershire.

The court heard that the property was so untidy that officers had to climb around rotting piles of newspapers, rubbish and clutter to find what they were looking for.

Police eventually unearthed some 1,129 indecent images involving children as young as one held in files by Joy's bed, between the pages of books and on two home computers.

Several images were in the very worst "level 5" category, which includes sadism.

Among the haul, police also found photographs, believed to have been taken by Joy himself, of young children in swimwear on beaches.

Joy, a member of PIE's governing committee, pleaded guilty at a previous hearing to four counts of making indecent images between January 1 2000 and January 24 2006, and to seven counts of possession.

The court was told he had a string of previous convictions for child sex offences dating back to the 1970s and 1980s, including the attempted rape of a young girl and indecent assault.

In mitigation, Steven Gosnell, defending, said his client had not touched a child for more than 20 years and now led a reclusive life.

Detective Constable Richard Morgan, of Scotland Yard's paedophile unit, said today: "David Joy is an educated, intelligent man who, along with his fellow PIE associates, holds an unwavering and lifelong-held belief that he should be able to have sex with children.

"He has backed this up in the past with constructive argument, and in my opinion represents an ongoing danger to children."

Mr Morgan added that Joy's conviction represented the "last piece in the jigsaw", with all of the leading PIE associates now serving prison sentences.

Entirely predictably, the Court of Appeal released Joy after a year:

A PERVERT who led a campaign to legalise sex with kids was smirking behind bars last night after his "indefinite" jail term was slashed to A YEAR.

David Joy, 66 once No2 in the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange or PIE was warned earlier this year he may die in prison after admitting child porn offences.

But yesterday three Court of Appeal judges ruled the indefinite sentence was inappropriate as Joy had only accessed porn for himself and was not a serious danger to the public.

The decision by Mr Justice Nicholas Blake, Lord Justice Andrew Longmore and Sir Christopher Holland sparked outrage among child welfare campaigners.

In August they had celebrated when Judge Michael Pert told Joy he would serve at least 18 months before being freed but added: "You must face the prospect that, granted your firmly-held beliefs, that day may not come."

mpu

Pony-tailed divorcee Joy led PIE's campaign in the 1970s and 80s for sex with children as young as FOUR to be legalised.

But in 1984 he was jailed for 18 months for publishing obscene material in a PIE newsletter.

In 1996 he got two more years after admitting indecent assaults dating back to the 80s.

Then in January 2006 cops found 1,129 images of children aged one to 13 at his rundown flat in Loughborough, Leics.

Some were in the level 5 category featuring sado-masochism, torture or bestiality.

Last night Shy Keenan, of child-abuse support group Phoenix Survivors, fumed: "Joy is one of the most dangerous sex offenders in the country. He should be locked up for good.

"Jail is the only proper place for him, not just because of what he has done but because of the fact he promotes those views. He is a man with no remorse."

[Jan Klimkowski]

Time to bump this thread

It contains much important information about the propagandists for paedophilia

"Man-boy love" is a master of this propaganda form.

There is no such thing as "man-boy love".

Or "man-girl love".

There is only child sexual abuse.