MAP Forum

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.

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.

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 wrote: Thu Jan 16, 2025 1:53 pm 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.

Episode 3: The Dirty Squad

This episode is all over the place. We hear from former London police detectives, as well as having the displeasure of listening to puritanical crusader Mary Whitehouse's disgusting voice. The focus is on why people on the PIE list weren't hunted and hounded, especially those working with children. This is to be expected given Renton's history as a 'survivor' of boarding school abuse.

There is more about how the evil pedophiles tried to infiltrate genuine civil liberties organizations. A Guardian journalist who wrote about PIE in the 70s talks about how she was pushed to do it. Nobody at The Guardian liked them, even then! Presently high profile politician Harriet Harman, who supported PIE back in the day as a spokeswoman for the National Council for Civil Liberties, has also now decided she always hated those horrible men. The Albany Trust, in the 1970s, realized that MAPs were being persecuted and said so, but backed off when Whitehouse accused them of giving PIE money.

We also hear about a detective's frustration at being unable to see through the prosecution of British diplomat and active spy Peter Hayman, who was found with a large collection of adult pornography and pictures of boys "as young as 8" dressed in their underwear. He even had the audacity to use a fake surname when talking to his horrible pedophile friends.

Finally, we learn that the PIE list left the hands of London police because it was passed on by Officer 'Dave' without authorization.

Thoughts

1. The police shouldn’t be harassing people for being on the PIE list. Officer Dave said it was ‘unfortunate’ that being on the list wasn’t enough to get a warrant for a raid. Unfortunate to have a reasonable evidential requirement for a warrant?

2. More comments about how PIE were tricking, manipulating, pretending to be a liberal organization. As if we are inherently subhuman. Why is everything MAPs do automatically delegitimized and viewed under such a sinister lens? It's laughably absurd.

3. Almost every school will have at least one MAP teacher. It shouldn’t matter if the teacher is responsible. Men can, in most cases, work with women without committing sexual crimes against them. The same applies to MAPs.

4. The historical revisionism is pathetic. Even worse is the veteran Guardian journalist expressing amusement at how people would "rip [attendees] to pieces" for attending a PIE meeting these days. Prejudice against MAPs doesn't count as prejudice, according to her. Liberals, bring out your pitchforks!

5. The proposal Harman announced back then, of requiring proof of harm for PIM offenses, was interesting. Admittedly, it would be hard to prove that a young person was harmed, but shouldn’t harm be proven before a person is convicted of a criminal offense?

6. How incredibly stupid do you have to be to not realize that a literal spy is not going to be easily prosecuted? Over pictures of boys in their underwear and letters to friends? Also, in 'slanderspeak', "as young as 8" means that one picture was of an 8 year old and the rest were of teens. And are MAPs not allowed to have MAP friends? We certainly aren't going to want to be friends with 'normal' people, who all want us dead. The Push.

7. Is anyone going to ask why a police officer passed on files to a member of the public? Or do normal rules not apply 'because pedophiles'?

Episode 4: Member 51

Episode 4 focuses on Peter Righton, a highly respected social worker and government advisor who was also a BL and member of PIE.

Renton talks with another Peter, in this case Peter McKelvey, who was involved with investigating Righton and failed to put the sinister monster behind bars. We learn that their house was unkempt.

Righton had a long-partner, Richard Alston; they met when Alston was 16, which is disclosed to us in a very judgmental tone. The two stayed together for 40 years, but of course that is not mentioned in the podcast. As a teacher, the appalling Alston apparently put his arms around boys affectionately.

McKelvey alleges that he was, at one point, in possession of a notebook written by Righton that contained a list of the boys he'd had sex with and how far they'd gone. It was absolutely damning. He then apparently destroyed this absolutely vital evidence because it "sickened" him. He's angry that Righton wasn't imprisoned. Authorities tried to talk to the boys, but the boys refused!

We are told that Righton and Alston would allegedly have boys over to their home, where they would be really nice to the boys. They would give them money, gifts, and tell them they were special. They would tell the boys to keep their sex games a secret. According to an e-mail address coincidentally discovered by Renton among the investigatory documents (from the 90s?), that still works, he was able to track down one of the boys.

The boy, now of course a man, talks about how he was treated really well, 'groomed' with adult pornography, and how reappearing podcast guest star Charles Napier would show up, and the men would give the boys hand jobs. Renton describes these interactions as non-consensual, but the accounts don't support that claim.

We hear that libraries still stock books written by Righton. We also find out that this episode was the fourth of five, which is by far the most interesting disclosure in this episode by implication.

Thoughts

1. “The house was obviously unkempt, untidy”. I am very curious as to why a MAP's house must be unkempt? Mine is kept in pretty good order.

2. Righton and Alston met at 35 and 16… so what? The French president's relationship with his wife started when he was 15 and she was his teacher.

3. Did McKelvey really admit to destroying evidence that would implicate Righton in a serious of sex crimes, and then complain that he was never able to have the man incarcerated? Seriously?

4. Does Renton stand in front of a mirror practicing increasingly sinister ways to say 'pedophile friends'? And what is his obsession with Charles Napier? Leave the poor man alone!

5. Righton and Alston were nice to the boys, told them they were special to the men, and encouraged them not to talk about their sex games. This is treated like an evil conspiracy, but taking a step back, it sounds quite like how any sexual relationship would work if criminalized. The accounts don't sound non-consensual.

6. A teacher being ‘touchy-feely’ and putting his arm around students affectionately is normal where I live, even viewed positively. Why problematize it?

7. Why should Righton’s books be taken off shelves? View them with repulsion if you want, but they are a valid part of social work history.

8. One of the planned episodes has been pulled! What happened? Originally, six episodes were planned, and the final two episodes were intended to expose BBC journalists in PIE. Another big 'pedo cover-up' by the BBC?

Episode 5: This Evil Thing

The final episode was a bit of an anti-climax. We heard about a former PIE chairman, Steven Freeman, who was sentenced to an 'Indeterminate Sentence for Public Protection' (IPP) for various PIM-related offenses back in 2011. He allegedly met with other former PIE members to exchange drawings. He died from Covid-19 in prison in January 2021.

We hear from a person who accuses former PIE member Neil Bibby of making advances toward adolescent boys. He states that he didn't understand what being fondled meant at the age of 12. He mentions going to Bibby's house at the age of 15 and rejecting the man's advances. Some boys apparently continued to visit, but he didn't.

We are told about former PIE members with no convictions still working with children at an advanced age. Renton's team tries to contact them; many decline, but some respond with excuses. It is rightly pointed out that being attracted to children is not a crime. The group Virtuous Pedophiles is mentioned.

Renton states that society is still blind to child abuse, citing a statistic that reports have more than quadrupled in recent times.

Thoughts

1. Media reports on the depravity of drawings indicate that our mere feelings, rather than concerns about harm to children, are the primary motivator of the MAP witch hunt. It is very sad that Mr. Freeman died in prison while serving an IPP. Such sentences have now been abolished, but many people remain incarcerated while their cases are processed by the UK's glacial criminal 'justice' system.

2. It sounds like Bibby respected 'no', and some boys responded with a 'yes' and continued to visit his house.

3. Chasing men who have worked with children for 40+ years, with no convictions, is just cruel.

4. If reports of 'child abuse' have more than quadrupled, doesn't that indicate greater awareness rather than blindness?

That's it for the PIE podcasts.

I will do further research, arrange my thoughts, and write a Mu article to be published in March or April.

Anyone with relevant information is welcome to contact me at b.ribbon@map-union.org.

This thread has a lot of views, so someone must be watching.