BBC Radio 4 series this week about PIE: In Dark Corners

[ILikeDungs]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m00272c6

Starts Wednesday 8th Jan. 9:30 a.m. R4

Journalist Alex Renton is shown a secret document, containing the names and addresses of people signed up to a pro-paedophile group called the Paedophile Information Exchange, or PIE, which was active in the 1970s and 80s.
That’s not all: weeks after getting the membership list Alex meets a contact who gives him bags full of documents, crammed with reports, contact details, letters.
As Alex starts following up on leads; detail of the criminal activities committed by some of PIE’s members, and those connected with them, begins to emerge.
It’s a lot to take in. Alex is not only a journalist, he’s a survivor of child sexual abuse. All of this information about PIE; it feels like a heavy weight to carry. Are children still at risk?

Lolita - when I read it, I saw it as about how someone who might seem "normal" could be a predator. And even how giving into our fetishes/fantasies is dangerous.
Humbert Humbert on the surface is a boring middle aged man who marries a woman with a child, and then when that woman dies he "heroically" takes on the responsibility for that child.
It is only by seeing into his mind and thoughts you see how corrupt his motives are. And even here you see that he is lying to himself.

I once advised my Ex not to read it unless he was in an extremely mentally stable place.
But the book as a whole has somehow been interpreted as "erotic", which is a very worrying interpretation. Just as is the pressure on women to push their erotic and sexual boundaries. This often seems to be not as much about enhancing sexual fulfilment for women as letting men act out their fantasies.

And I also know that Secure Hospitals had a massive problem trying to keep pornography (including the worst types) out, and stopping abuse of children happening within their walls. It wasn't just Jimmy Saville.

I was a child in the 60s and most of the 70s, but my impression is that many members of the generation that was born during or just after the war wanted to see huge changes. They were impatient with the old ways - no sex before marriage, having a child out of wedlock was a source of lifelong shame for the child as well as the mother, early marriage or forced adoption was the best way out of the last problem, same-sex attraction was unnatural and vile, marriage was for life even when it was destroying the lives of both spouses and their children, termination of pregnancy was wrong at least in part because it would encourage immorality, etc etc. So they and many of their elders campaigned for change, and got it. Great.

But some radicals were keen to go much further than that and get rid of all social norms and taboos. Some of them were undoubtedly motivated by a desire to do things that were at that time illegal, and mostly still are, without the bother of trying to keep it quiet and risking a prison sentence. However, a lot of them were just clueless. They had no grasp of what the consequences would be if just about anything was legal and if there were no prudes trying to control what other people did with their bodies. I genuinely think many people are very, very naive, overly trusting, and utterly lacking in common sense. They suppress their instincts that something is wrong and tell themselves that they're repressed and have to work harder to get rid of these bourgeois tendencies. So they nodded along when PIE turned up asking to be affiliated to the NCCL and were supported by the Young Liberals. Why shouldn't children be allowed to express themselves? Why should they be denied the chance to do what adults did for fun? If pressed I expect a lot of them would have said they assumed that PIE were actually talking about teenagers who were sexually mature. But those who had actually noticed that PIE explicitly said they thought four years old was old enough to consent to sexual activity were probably too afraid of being labelled as prudes themselves to say anything.

In an "everything connected" moment, "Wilt" by Tom Sharpe mentions "Lolita" as an example of shocking literature that the eponymous lecturer would not read to his class of apprentices (to set up a humorous exchange). If I hadn't picked up the reference from the hit pop single, I would certainly have been driven to read it from that (as I did "Naked Lunch" and "Last Exit to Brooklyn").

Isn't it awful the things we did when we were young and thought we needed to educate ourselves. So much more fun being old enough to read what we enjoy.

I enjoyed Last Exit To Brooklyn.

William Burroughs was ... interesting, a bit more style over substance.

Cannot for the life of me remember much about Lolita. Which is probably it's own verdict. But it was in the school library. Along with A Clockwork Orange.

But even now, approaching my dotage, I tend not to look to other people to tell me what to read - or indeed write.

My main memory of Burroughs is giant centipedes, and Last Exit was too urban, but Lolita gave me the horrors. Nabokov wrote HH as a monster - was he a little taken aback at all the reviewers victim-blaming? You can do whatever you want if your prose is good enough.

I only mentioned the three hospitals where Savile’s abuse was most known about. I’m aware that there are allegations of abuse at other hospitals. That could mean 100,000 nurses and their families and friends, at a generous estimate, might have known. Out of a population of around 60 million people.

As another poster said, it wasn’t generally known about in Leeds, and huge numbers of people lined the streets there for his funeral procession. And this was in the city where much of his abuse took place, at Leeds General Infirmary and elsewhere.

Also worth pointing out that many of that "radical" generation, also were implicitly patriarchal ie male dominated.

Whilst notionally about liberation and equality, this was always what men (mainly immature boys) thought was liberating. ie having lots of sex with women who of course would comply.

And I think as immature boy men, really had not ability to understand (unless they had been subjected to child abuse) that there should be an age limit. And also of course, many young girls who followed bands or even groovy revolutionaries, didn't go because they wanted sex, but would (sadly) not feel able to say no. ie the culture pressure to fit in with dominant alternative culture, was that women / girls should be available.

It was this implicity sexist atmosphere that led to what was really the first Women's Liberation Conference at Essex University in 68 or 69.

But also what led to Spare Rib being set up. And as said up thread it was never radical feminist, as it was more a journalist project and just as is the case now, media feminism, has very little to do with grass roots or activists feminism.

The sexism of the alternative culture was one of the biggest motivations for women to realise they needed to have their own Liberation Movement, because it was clear, they would never have a voice, or be part of some general Liberation movement if it was dominated by men.

The bonus of that period of time was that it was really common for people whatever region, class, etc., to assume it was possible to start up a group or whatever and not look around for leaders to tell them what to say or think.

Added to which as discussed up thread, communication that was more than local was not as easy as it is post internet.

And in fact when the first Women's Liberation Movement Newsletter started to be distributed some felt it was little more that an attempt by women in London to "take over" the Movement!

Thanks to whoever it was the posted about Eileen Fairweather.

Her work and struggle to get Islington Council to take responsibility for what was happening to children in their care, took years and years, and still isn't completed. And also the work of Liz Davies
https://islingtonsurvivors.co.uk/eileen-fairweather-freelance-investigative-journalist/

Every time I see more moral than anyone Margaret Hodge on the television I want to puke. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/nov/19/childrensservices.childrensministry

Which illustrates that if there is in anything that is a factor common factor in child abuse scandals it is local councils. I wonder if it is just those that are known are all Labour. I doubt the Tories behave any better.

The fact that at least when I was younger the assumption was that "socialisation " is something we should resist rather than a foundation of a civilised society.

From the Hodge timeliness in the Guardian article posted above

June 30 2003
Ms Hodge rejected calls for her resignation as children's minister. She acknowledged making one "terrible error of judgement" in 1992. But she added: "I think in the context of those times, people will understand why I made that [error of] judgement. I hope they understand that I've learned the lessons from that."

What! What context, what time, what people!?

I imagine many Labour self aggrandisers will be saying much the same about undermining women's sex based rights in a few decades.

But what it really means is that I was too busy ingratiating myself with the then "in crowd" and failed to use my own ability to think critically.

As we know the Labour Party is rife with factions and vendettas.

I wonder what Harriet Harmen's excuse is.

I re-read Lolita recently, for the first time since being at university. The language Humbert uses to describe his desires, and justify to the reader just how misunderstood and marginalised he is, is very interesting. Might remind you of something.

I’ll read (almost) anything, can’t be without a book or two on the go at all times, but I’ve always avoided this particular book because of the subject matter. However, I might give it a read - always best to know as much as possible about predators’ tactics.

This very in depth report by safe schools alliance is extremely pertinent to this subject

safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2023/04/29/unesco-who-sexuality-education/

The table at the end is an easy access comparison. E.G:

Episode 2 about to start on Radio 4.

I remember going to one or two gay liberation meetings in the 70s inevitably run by men, where I was expected to fall in with the “ abolish the age of consent” line. Did not go back. Only for it all to resurface again in the 90s in meetings which included Tatchell .

I really can't put into words how much I oppose banning books - the printed word.

By all means, label, classify, codify, and catalogue. And obviously there is the need to protect secrets that are embedded in matters security, military and diplomatic as well as the regular laws for libel and sub judice.

But - in a nod to discussions elsewhere - quis custodes ipsos custodiet ?

"The authorities" rather left that as an open goal though. Why should there be any reason for the age of consent to be different for hetero and homo sexual sex ? Especially when it was specifically drafted to mean men ?

If you wanted to write a conspiracist based drama, you'd cast the legislating body as secret paedophiles who deliberately set that bar just to encourage the sort of discussions that followed. It would (likely) be a load of old cobblers, but in a world of macarena dancing Cuban immigrants armed with sniper rifles on a grassy knoll in Dallas, you know some people will believe anything.

Just listened to episode 2. There are four more to come. The BBC is only releasing them once a week, after broadcast on Radio 4.

I felt a genuine chill near the beginning when Alex and his producer went to the former home of a prolific abuser of young boys and spoke to an elderly neighbour who remembered him. The neighbour's daughter was visiting. 'Oh yes', she said. 'I remember him. He was such a lovely man, always organising interesting things for all the local boys to do'. She was certain (and I do hope she's right) that the abuser never touched her own boys because her mother was keeping an eye on proceedings, but plenty of abusers would have regarded that as a challenge, not a deterrent. The man in question served several prison terms. He may still be alive.

It was also interesting to hear from a friend of Alex's who had attended early meetings of various groups campaigning for gay rights. One sounds very like the one @Ramblingnamechanger mentions. A keynote address was given by a man who brought his 'boyfriend' onto the stage with him. This was a pre-pubertal child. The speaker talked about how this was a loving consensual relationship and most of the audience applauded. Horrendous.

yes, sorry, I said they were all available but I was confused and looking mostly at series 1 episodes, it turned out

Channel 4 are currently showing a documentary series about Marilyn Manson, which shows that he was another abuser 'hiding in plain sight.'.
It's horrifying but instructive to see how paedophilia can accepted as daring and cool by young teenage girls, when it's promoted by someone who cynically makes a living out of shocking the parents.
Watch Marilyn Manson: Unmasked | Stream free on Channel 4

Yes. And some if those who worked in Leeds hospitals experienced Savile behaving creepily but didn't experience anything worse than that. They may not have had the evidence they would have needed to be taken seriously if they complained, and if they did mention a concern to their manager, would that concern have led to any worthwhile action? Clearly not. Savile was a bully who intimidated hospitals workers when he came across them in deserted corridors, but many were able to extricate themselves from the uncomfortable situation, perhaps when someone came round the corner. In those circumstances, most would just want to forget the creepy behaviour and avoid encountering him again.

Ys, I have never understood how people see the book as sympathetic to him. It seems clear to me it seems him as weak and pathetic, but also that he destroys Lolita, who is clearly not in control of the situation and is significantly damaged by it.