Tracking the PIE podcasts

[BLueRibbon]

As we discussed in our news subforum, a journalist in the UK was handed a list of PIE members last year, and has proceeded to investigate in a series of podcasts and news articles. The podcasts will be released weekly. So far, we have had the 'pleasure' of listening to the first two.

For now, I will monitor the podcasts and articles as they are published, reviewing them one-by-one. I am hopeful that TOC will write an article to submit in response, as he has a much greater knowledge of PIE and the history of British MAP activism in general. However, should he not do so, or maybe even if he does, I will use the summaries here to write my own article.

This is posted on our forum, which means that I would appreciate our members adding their own thoughts between my posts.

[BLueRibbon]

Episode 1: The List

In the first episode, presenter Alex Renton talks to Francis Wheen.

Wheen talks about PIE treasurer Charles Napier, who taught at the school he attended when Napier was a very young man. Wheen alleges that Napier befriended the boys by offering them alcohol and cigarettes in a small room attached to the gym, and subsequently made sexual advances toward them. Wheen claims that when he rejected these advances, Napier made fun of him for being immature and said he was not ready to hang out with their group. It is alleged that Napier was soon discovered, and sped away in his sports car so quickly that he crashed into the school gate on his way out.

Thoughts

We are relying on memories from many years ago, which may or may not be accurate. The allegations, if entirely accurate and truthful, do not paint Napier in a good light. While I believe that consensual sexual relationships with adolescent boys are not always inherently wrong or harmful, Napier allegedly did three things that I consider unethical:

1. Offered boys an addictive and harmful substance in order to befriend them.
2. Made a sudden advance, apparently without any indication of mutual interest.
3. Reacted with hostility toward a boy who resisted his advance.

In mitigation, Napier was a young man in his early 20s, only 10 years older than the boys. In a separate article, which relies on information given by Wheen and others, it is stated that the boys at the school naturally gravitated toward this young and exciting teacher, and it is claimed that Napier gave the boys soft drinks rather than alcohol. This suggests a natural connection between the young teacher and his students, and casts doubt on the reliability of some of the historical claims. The story of him speeding away in a sports car and crashing into a gate only adds to these concerns; it sounds much more like a schoolboy rumor than something that actually happened. While it is likely that Napier behaved somewhat inappropriately, has a significant number of accusers, and ultimately pled guilty, we should be cautious about the extent to which we believe some of the finer details.

[BLueRibbon]

Episode 2: They Groom Everyone

In the second episode, Renton accuses Napier and other PIE members of 'grooming' whole communities to push their agenda and give themselves access to young boys.

Renton visits Napier's old neighborhood, where he allegedly knocks on doors and coincidentally comes across a family whose children used to play with Napier. They report that Napier was a kind and charming man who was much loved by the community. He would frequently invite children to his house, play with them in his garden, and take them on trips. Renton insinuates that Napier used a charm offensive to groom the community into giving him access to their children.

Later, Renton investigates alleged connections between PIE members/associates and gay youth support groups that sprung up around the UK at the time. It is claimed that PIE members actively forged connections with these groups, and were even accepted to a degree. A former attendee at a CHE meeting expressed horror at how a PIE chairman had attended a meeting with a boyfriend who was a 'child' and received rapturous applause. He comments that the boy was no doubt destined for the 'scrapheap' once he hit puberty. He then describes his (17/18m) boyfriend (22/23m) seeing a parallel between their criminalized relationship and the PIE chair's criminalized relationship, while he thought it was different due to it being above the heterosexual age of consent. He stated that he felt he was able to make decisions about who he had sex with, implying that the PIE chair's younger partner must not be able to do so.

Thoughts

1. There is a blatant push to treat Napier's charm and kindness as an attempt to groom the community into liking him. This disgustingly cynical approach starts with the default assumption that MAPs are sadists who dedicate their lives to inflicting harm on children. Through this lens, any good that a MAP does is part of a ploy to inflict harm on a child, no matter the actual intentions.

2. Renton’s team clearly hold the same bias toward the alleged involvement of PIE members in gay youth groups. I don’t doubt that BLs back in the day used the gay youth groups as a way to hook up consensually with teenage boys, but I do doubt that hooking up was the only purpose. Getting young people onboard is important for any cause, and young gay people would have been a natural ally when the straight AoC was 16 and the gay AoC was 21. Forging such connections isn't grooming; it's classic activism.

3. Destined for the scrapheap? I had a lot of YFs in my 20s (no criminal activity occurred), and I stayed in touch with closer YFs into their adulthood when I was no longer physically attracted to them. What a despicable slur to imply that we tell YFs to fuck off once they're no longer in our AoA.

4. If an older teenager under the age of consent believes he was able to consent, how could he outright assume that a younger teenager must not have the same ability?

[Fragment]

I have more I want to say, but it's just amazing how wrong they get us.

[BLueRibbon]

I have more I want to say, but it's just amazing how wrong they get us.

It's simple confirmation bias

When you start from a position of MAPs are evil sadists, it's easy to interpret everything we do as being motivated by sinister intentions.

Help an old lady across the street? Just for appearances so that you can rape kids in the community.

Raise money for charity? Obviously you want to meet poor kids to rape them.

Have sex with an adult woman? Purely a method of looking normal so that you can rape kids more easily.

Avoid children? Clearly because you're so desperate to rape them and couldn't stop yourself.

The public image of MAPs is so patently ridiculous and incredibly offensive.