MINOR ATTRACTED PERSON

JAMES – 31 December 2022 – JustPikachoo.com

I was originally going to be writing about a CIC for my next blog post, however upon waking up from my slumber (as my sleep pattern is a bit out of whack currently) I noticed a trend on twitter – Minor-Attracted People. I’m familiar with what this term refers to, because it is a subject that I have read about before; and it disturbs me as much today than it did the first time I processed what I saw (words, not imagery, to be clear). If you read my previous blog on Data Harvesting, then you may have noticed I did make reference to this term within that report, and it centres around an ideology that has been pushed for decades with the aim of legalising sexual activity between an adult and a minor by eradicating the age of consent altogether.

Recently, there are chilling examples of this concept occasionally emerging from the shadows in the world of academia, but to see it being used within and between Police Scotland is of particular concern, especially so that this is an agency which is charged with the duty to protect children from such perpetrators. By in any way aligning with such an ideology, it immediately pulls into question the efficacy and reliability of Police Scotland to reasonably handle such cases; the thought of a child — who undoubtedly would be unaware of why what is happening to them is wrong — having to endure such acts is nothing short of distressing. I normally do not like to lend any type of voice to this subject, because the more it is kept out of the mainstream, the better – but if it is already in the mainstream, then I feel it a moral duty to, at least, write about it. It would be correct on my part to help equip you, the reader, with as much background information in order that you come to your own conclusion, of which I am certain we will commonly share.

This will be a highly uncomfortable write, and perhaps it may be a highly uncomfortable read, but if by reading what is written it can assist a person to spot the signals better, then it is worth it. I do not sit here writing this blog with the intention of amplifying any platform for any paedophile, but in the hope that perhaps somewhere along the domino effect, this lends its usefulness to save or rescue a young victim, wherever in the world they may be.

This ideology started, at least on a political level, back with the aims of the late Ian Campbell Dunn, a prolific gay rights activist in Scotland. On 6th May 1969, Dunn officially founded the Scottish Minorities Group (‘SMG’) — though the group would often hold its meetings at his parents house in Glasgow since January of that same year — where undoubtedly the topic of discussion was finding the pathway to legalising homosexuality as a recent change in the law only applied to England and Wales; not to Scotland where it continued to be illegal. The legality of homosexuality eventually found its way into Scotland in 1980, incorporating the same reforms which happened in England and Wales prior, in 1967. For a number years, the Scottish Minorities Group would hold meetings, reach out to others of similar lifestyle, and generally try to improve the quality of life for those it related to; on the whole things were quite amicable, though not without an element of risk considering the legality prevailing over Scotland at the time.

However, in October 1974, a special interest group within the Scottish Minorities Group was officially formed in Edinburgh, and it went by the acronym PIE — or, to speak its full title, the Paedophile Information Exchange. This was a pro-paedophile activist group that sought legal reform in the approach of sexual intercourse between and among adults and children, notably by eradicating the existence of age of consent. The two founding members of the Paedophile Information Exchange were Ian Dunn, as written about above, and a gay student by the name of Michael Hanson who acted as the first Chairman, and at the time was involved in a relationship with a 15-year old — it would not be difficult to draw conclusions as to the vested personal interests, I leave that to your imagination.

Though being founded in Edinburgh, due to a larger quantity of enquiries coming from England, the group made the decision in 1975 to relocate from Edinburgh to London, where an individual by the name of Keith Hose took over as Chairman. At this point, the stated objective for the paedophile information exchange was: ‘to alleviate suffering of many adults and children‘ by seeking the abolition of the age of consent, thereby legalising sexual relations between and among adults and children. The stated objective, however, was quite a broad church, it explained the what but not the how; it didn’t make clear, for instance, that one method employed by the group to ‘alleviate suffering’ was to distribute and collect child pornographic material amongst its members. Remembering, of course, that todays technology did not exist back then — there was no such thing as social media, thus such images were hard copies, and disturbing still, must have been hard copies containing a photograph of a real event. Members of the paedophile information exchange found sexual gratification in the viewing, and perhaps in some instances the acts, of innocent children being sexually molested, and documented while being so.

It would seem that there was no taboo that was off-limits for at least some of the members within the group. The sexual interests would range from anything ordinary (commonly referred to as ‘vanilla‘) to kinks and fetishes involving urine and faeces (commonly referred to as ‘piss play‘ or ‘scat play‘). In fact, Dunn even had a dispute with HM Revenue and Customs over the import of such photographic material; but his sexual antics were recognised by fellow like-minded people, when he was beatified by the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence, a reference to underline ‘Saint Ian of the Recreational Urinals‘. It is also likely that Dunn engaged in what is described as ‘chem-sex‘, which is where an individual will get so high on drugs to be in a euphoric state and fuel the libido; that is because Dunn wished to have a cannabis farm from his villa in Spain, where it would be staffed by like-minded people. The truly remarkable element is that Dunn was open about these desires, yet for some reason this didn’t encourage any employer to consider his suitability and character, which I find to be rather interesting.

The group did not seem to be particularly large by measure of its membership, as the official count in 1977 was around 250 with the same being reported in 1981; however, there’s no reliable way to know for certain the tally of those who did not disclose their presence. There was a statement by Thomas O’Carroll where he suggested that a group within the group existed, largely made up of readers of gay magazines and publications — most being young, professionally educated men. It is unclear why there was this tiered system, it could perhaps be for security reasons as I imagine the actions of these people would not be commonly well-received by the public, but it could also be the case that what truly went on in the inner-circles would be enough to even scare of shock fellow members of the paedophile information exchange; consequentially, I sit here now struggling to imagine what could possibly make it worse.

Sadly, this was not the only group operating sharing the aim to legalise sexual activity with children, there was also PAL, which is short for the ‘Paedophile Action for Liberation’, formed as a breakaway group deriving from the South London Gay Liberation Front. This, much like the paedophile information exchange, distributed its own material and writings, the magazine for PAL was titled Palaver. These groups of course had common links, they were supported by the National Council for Civil Liberties (which today goes by the name Liberty), where they received some support from prominent politicians such as Harriet Harman, once the Deputy Leader of Labour; Jack Dromey, a former Home Affairs spokesman; and Patricia Hewitt, a former Health Secretary. These politicians, among others, it could be implied sought to eradicate the age of consent in the 1970s and 1980s, by virtue of their clear commitment and support for various pro-paedophile activist groups. In one particular spread of the Palavar magazine, it featured: ‘if all paedophiles in community schools or private schools were to strike, how many would be forced to close, or at least alter their regimes?‘. Did members of these groups disclose amongst one another their professions — why is it that schools, a place with a lot of children, was used to feature the education profession above all other professions; or is it as simple as suggesting that many members of these various groups were teachers. It is certainly something that prompts an inquisitive mind. Nevertheless, following the publication of that particular quote, it caused members of the paedophile action for liberation movement to merge into the paedophile information exchange.

To counteract the bad publicity, a plan was hatched by the paedophile information exchange group to artificially create as much good publicity, wherever possible, and in doing so to utilise that process as an advertisement to attract more like-minded persons into their membership; of which we know included the exchange of child pornographic materials. These aims were outlined in the annual Chairman report for year-ending 1976. But through the opposition to the actions and aims of this group, others would voice their dissent and disagreement, condemning the ideological objectives — we saw it in 1975, where members of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality that spoke negatively of the paedophile information exchange were reprimanded for doing so, and it was subsequently followed with a passed motion at the annual conference condemning ‘the harassment of the paedophile information exchange‘. When you secure political allies that can discreetly exert influential soft-power, and with the gift of hindsight knowing that such alliances were secured, it is unsurprising that the voice of the average person is squashed only to be replaced with the lip service of key figures, whether indirectly or otherwise.

But political influence did not quench the thirst of this group, and unfortunately the ideology started to spread like a contagion into other areas of society. The third sector (charities) were no stranger to offering their assistance in the attempt to see paedophilia legalised, the National Association for Mental Health — or as it is today known, Mind — encouraged the group to submit documentation to support their objective. One has to wonder how many individuals have gone through the doors of Mind, suffering from mental health issues that derive from sexual abuse as a child; I’d wager the number is rather substantial, but yet those that were victim to heinous acts now must receive therapy from an organisation that, on an ethical and moral level, is no better than the abuser, for they at one time shared the same view on this unpleasant topic. The paedophile information exchange did submit a 17-page document to the Home Office’s criminal law revision committee, expressly seeking the removal altogether of the age of consent, and that matters of consensual sexual activities are not something to be governed by a court of law.

Or, for instance, in 1976 the paedophile information exchange were asked by the Albany Trust to help produce a booklet to be published by the trust on the topic of paedophilia. But more concerning, is that this was not a private venture, or a charitable venture — no, no — this was a publicly subsidised project, as asserted by Mary Whitehouse during a speech in parliament. Yes, the general public were paying, through the use of their taxes, for promotional material in regards to paedophilia. But this is what happens when you can twist the arms of the right people, and sit above the stage, pulling on the strings like some puppet master. We see the same tactics employed today, even, with the same strategies, perhaps in hope that enough time has passed that people either have forgotten about history or were unaware of its existence at all. If we take a look at what the Albany Trust does today, it claims to be a ‘specialist counselling and psychotherapy charity, focusing on a positive approach to sexuality and relationships‘. But I ponder; specialist to whom? What defines a ‘positive approach‘? Leopards and spots spring to mind, if you catch my drift.

If the third sector and political arena alone was not nauseating, then perhaps the involvement of, then, a sitting judge could shed some light on how far up the food chain this spread. Lord Justice Fulford was a campaigner for the NCCL and became a member of the Conspiracy Against Public Morals, and through this provided legal advice ranging from civil liberties objections to the charge of conspiracy to corrupt public morals — the latter being what would happen in the instance where two parties agree to commit a crime in the future — during the 1970s. Even in recent years, this individual is still active in this professional field, and nodding to our system in the UK whereby, in most cases, decisions will be taken by a judge, this is an example of who ultimately determines what the average person receives through the courts of appeal. Is this truly the character and integrity that should have so much power held? I think not, but you are free to come to your own conclusion. Of course, Lord Fulford has professed that he has no recollection of these events, but that too I leave you to draw your own conclusions on, as I have drawn mine.

Not all members of the paedophile information exchange used their real names, some would use an alias. This is particularly true for the late diplomat, Peter Hayman, whose occupied a myriad positions in British diplomacy during his professional lifetime. But to his fellow like-minded perverts, he was known as Mr Henderson, and would use burner addresses to have obscene material sent to him. Peter Hayman was mentioned in a briefing to Margaret Thatcher, where the government at the time became aware of his antics, yet despite the powerful positions Hayman held — which could have easily opened him up to serious blackmail at the expense of national security — the government thought it best to bury the story and present a united front to the public. The optics of power plays continue, it would seem. Hayman was discovered through his own carelessness, where he left child pornographic material on a bus, which was used to track and trace him, leading to his arrest and a search of his property; officers thereafter came into possession of diaries spanning over multiple years, filled with fantasies of sexual activities with children, prostitutes, cross-dressing and erotic writing. His punishment? A slap on the wrist and an instruction not to send anymore in the post. But one parliamentarian wasn’t having it, they were not pleased with the response and how the situation was handled, namely Geoffrey Dickens who — after airing his opposition to Hayman’s antics — was on the receiving end of life-threats with his name appearing on hit lists. He made a statement in the Commons on 29th November 1985, and I want to allow it to resurface, because it spoke truth, even in the face of mighty resistance from powerful people:

” The noose around my neck grew tighter after I named a former high-flying British diplomat on the Floor of the House [House of Commons]. Honourable 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. “

If only politicians would follow this example — a courageous one to stand up for what is right, even when it feels that you are standing alone. These revelations led to a wave of raids in 1978 as part of a inquiry into the activities of the paedophile information exchange (though I would have thought it be rather obvious what those activities were)…