PIE, or the 'Paedophile Information Exchange', was NAMBLA's lesser known British cousin. Born during the sexually progressive period of the 1970s, they sprung up alongside a flurry of radical reformist groups covering what would now be considered part of the LGBTQ+ spectrum. Their members included pedophiles, hebephiles, ephebophiles, and radical queers, many of whom have distanced themselves from the now very unfashionable 'P' word.

In early 2025, the writer Alex Renton published a series of articles and podcasts on the rather boring 'revelation' that an ancient PIE membership list had been leaked to him. It appears that the document was leaked without authorization by a police officer named Dave Flanagan, first to social worker Peter McKelvie and then finally on to Renton. The podcasts were preceded by a sensationalist BBC article proclaiming "Men on secret 1970s pro-paedophile list could still work with children today", an amusingly dull anecdote given the vast swathes of anonymous MAPs working with children across the world. These men, the BBC added, had not been convicted of any offense, essentially endorsing them as the second coming of Mother Teresa given the extremity of the criminalization of any possible avenue of MAP sexual expression.

I'm going to start by analyzing the podcast episodes and their implications one-by-one, before moving on to a broader discussion. The episode 'titles' in the subheadings are my own, not Renton's.

Episode one: Charles Napier as devil incarnate

The first podcast focuses on former PIE treasurer Charles Napier, whom Renton paints as a sinister, manipulative sociopath who loved nothing more than stealing the souls of his poor students. Renton talks to one of Napier's former students, journalist Francis Wheen, who alleges that the young adult Napier befriended his students by offering them alcohol and cigarettes in a small office attached to the school 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 joked that 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.

It is difficult to be fully trusting of accusations from many years ago, even if the broader scope of the claims was indeed admitted in court. However, if we are to take the claims at face value, it is right to criticize Napier for offering boys an addictive and harmful substance in order to befriend them, making a sudden advance without any apparent indication of mutual interest, and reacting with hostility toward a boy who resisted his advances. This behavior, even toward adults, would be deemed slimy and inappropriate at the least. In mitigation, Napier was a young man in his early 20s, only 10 years older than the boys. Indeed, a separate article which relies on information given by Wheen and others indicates 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. The finer details are therefore uncertain, but the overall picture suggests a natural connection between the young teacher and his students, who were all acting like the rebellious young males they were, casting doubt on the reliability of the implication that Napier was an evil and monstrous abuser. The story of him speeding away in a sports car and crashing into a gate only adds to concerns of historical accuracy; 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 more damning details.

Napier's friend Tom O'Carroll, former PIE chairman and active blogger, published a balanced account of his old friend that, while not claiming total innocence, does clash with the monstrous portrayal offered up by Renton and Wheen. The image presented, of a charismatic and intriguing man who was more of a peer than a brute, mirrors my experience of interactions with students as a younger teacher. Now, I didn't ply my students with alcohol and I do find such behavior impossible to defend. Nonetheless, the portrayal of Napier as a devilish manipulator of children seems less realistic than O'Carroll's description of a flawed but ultimately human figure.

Episode two: Not allowed to make friends of any kind

The second of Renton's podcasts accuses PIE members of grooming everyone. The definition of grooming here is broad. Trying to forge any working relationship or friendship short of screaming "I'm a pedophile and I ejaculated to the thought of a 12 year old today!" seems to suffice.

Renton starts by visiting Napier's old neighborhood, where he allegedly knocks on random 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. There is a blatant push by the presenter to treat Napier's charm and kindness as an attempt to groom the community into liking him for sinister purposes. 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. As a MAP who has befriended many children simply to enjoy their company, I find Renton's portrayal of this incredibly offensive. Renton himself admitted that there was no indication of Napier attempting sexual activity with the children in his village, so why imply that it was an example of grooming? This is yet another example of the blatant and shameless slandering of MAPs, with the mass approval of the UK's bloodthirsty public.

Later in the episode, Renton investigates alleged connections between PIE associates and gay youth support groups that sprung up around the UK at the time. It is stated that PIE members actively forged connections with these groups, and were even accepted to a degree. Renton’s team clearly hold the same bias toward this political networking as they do toward interaction between a MAP and a young person, again implying a sinister motive. Now, I don’t doubt that some men back in the day used the gay youth groups as a way to hook up consensually with gay teenage boys, but I do very much 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 Age of Consent was 16 and the gay Age of Consent was 21. Forging such connections isn't grooming; it's classic activism. But again, MAPs can do no right; everything we do is uniquely evil and satanic, even when it isn't.

Episode three: "Why can't we just abandon all standards when they're pedos?"

The third episode of the podcast paints PIE, and by extension the MAP activist community, as a special kind of evil, one that must surely have dirtied everything it touched. We hear 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 infamous puritan Mary Whitehouse accused them of giving PIE money.

A proposal Harman announced back then, of requiring proof of harm for offenses related to images of minors, 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? That position should be a prerequisite for anyone claiming to be in favor of the most basic of protections against unjust deprivation of liberty. With people espousing such views, PIE were very much in their element, not a bunch of slimy rapists hijacking a movement in which they did not belong. The fact organizations like PIE are now very much persona non grata is a stark reflection of the illiberalism of modern 'liberals', not something that should now be subject to such pathetic attempts at historical revisionism.

Also in the episode, we learn about a detective's frustration at being unable to see through the prosecution of the retired senior diplomat and PIE member Peter Hayman, who was found with a large collection of adult pornography and pictures of boys "as young as 8" dressed in their underwear. It is worth noting that when the media or police say "as young as 8", the reality is that one picture was of an 8 year old and the rest were of older children or teens, as we saw in the Huw Edwards case. The evidence against Hayman hardly sounds very damning. And given the extremity of MAP persecution, it's quite understandable for MAPs to gravitate toward other MAPs as friends; that certainly isn't nor should it be a crime, despite the way it is presented by Renton. And if that sounds problematic to you, I suggest reading about The Push, as this networking is primarily a product of external attitudes toward MAPs. Ultimately though, the alleged establishment cover-up is the focus of the story on Hayman, and unlike much of the nonsense in the podcast, these allegations are probably not imagined, according to my private communication with O'Carroll. However, it's not at all surprising that Hayman was protected by the establishment; it later turned out he had at some point become an active spy. I cannot fathom why anyone would expect a government to allow one of its spies to be dragged through a scandal.

Officer Dave Flangan, who leaked the PIE list without authorization, expresses frustration that merely being on the PIE list wasn't sufficient to justify a raid. There is more than a slight suggestion that being a MAP who talks to other MAPs should justify a man's door being kicked down, with all the horror that might entail no matter the outcome. One has to ask, if you're going to have your life upended on the basis of guilt by association, what motivation remains to comply with laws that you may find ourageous? Or is the implication that talking with peers is criminal in itself, or should be so? Evidential standards aren't just there for people you like; they exist for everyone. Make exceptions, and you end up with an oppressive regime.

Episode four: A rather boring conspiracy

The fourth episode talks about Peter Righton, a highly respected social worker and government advisor who was also a MAP and member of PIE.

Another Peter, the aforementioned social worker McKelvey, was tasked with the investigation of his namesake. He 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, according to the social worker. McKelvey then apparently destroyed this vital evidence because it "sickened" him, and now he's angry that Righton wasn't imprisoned. Authorities tried to talk to the boys, he explains, but the boys refused to help put their old friend behind bars. Perhaps having experienced AMSC for themselves, they disagreed with the myth that it is always harmful and abusive.

We hear that 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. Alston was allegedly also a MAP, and as a teacher, it is stated in an alarmist tone that he put his arms around boys affectionately. This, where I live, is something that is quite normal for teachers, and well-received by students. If the UK believes this to be a problem, well, shame on the UK.

Listeners are told that Righton and Alston would 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, allegedly, engage in very childish sex play. According to an e-mail address coincidentally discovered by Renton among the investigatory documents (from the 90s?), that still supposedly works, he was able to track down one of the boys. The former boy, now a man, does not condemn Righton and Alston outright. He describes being shown adult pornography to arouse him, but at no point does he suggest that any kind of force of pressure was involved. While illegal, and somewhat manipulative, the activities described are more along the lines of silly male games that outright exploitation. It is the kind of behavior that is normal among male peers, not some kind of adult imposition upon toddlers as it may well be given Renton's tone.

The most shocking revelation, really, is McKelvey's destruction of evidence. If Righton were such a horrible monster whose prosecution was overwhelmingly important, why the hell would McKelvey destroy evidence simply because it disgusted him?

Episode five: An even duller conclusion

The final episode was a bit of an anti-climax, perhaps because the producers had been unable to dig up any new dirt on men who were now well into their 70s or 80s. The focus was on Steven Freeman, a former leader of PIE who was given an IPP (essentially a life sentence) for possessing criminalized images of children and making his own drawings. He was additionally convicted of failing to disclose a password (a hidden container would have helped him in this case). The wrongness of Mr. Freeman's prosecution will be discussed in detail below.

We also 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, as a visitor to Bibby's house, at the age of 12. Now, I don't know if things were different then, but in this day and age, that would be quite exceptional. The man mentions going to Bibby's house again at the age of 15 and rejecting Bibby's advances, and this rejection was accepted. Some boys apparently continued to happily visit.

We are reminded of the fact that a small number of former PIE members with no convictions are still working with children at an advanced age. There are in fact a huge number of MAPs that work with children, given the absence of other avenues for even the slightest semblance of interaction in western countries. Renton's team tries to contact (harass) these people; many decline, but some respond with excuses, unsurprisingly. It is rightly pointed out that being attracted to children is not a crime, and the group Virtuous Pedophiles is mentioned. This does little to temper any suggestion that simply being attracted to children is the true evil in the eyes of the podcast's producers.

Thoughts

MAPs as sadists

One of the overarching themes the podcast reveals is that everything MAPs do is deemed to be predatory or sadistic, predicated upon sinister intent.

Helping an old lady across the street would be just for appearances so that you could assault children in the community. Raising money for charity would be an excuse to gain access to children to assault them. Having sex with an adult woman would be purely for the sake of looking normal so that you could assault children more easily. Avoiding children would only be done because you're so desperate to assault them that you couldn't stop yourself. Everything is viewed through an insanely paranoid lens in which the MAP is the vilest of salivating monsters.

According to the world view of anglo people especially, MAPs are not so much sexually attracted to children as they are violent sadists who wish to inflict harm on the smallest children possible. This world view, very much incorrect and incredibly dangerous, justifies endless absurd laws such as the criminalization of AI and drawn images, and even written texts in some jurisdictions. Why, should one of these sadists see a computer-generated depiction of a child being assaulted - not that such is even needed for an image to be deemed unlawful - they will be excitedly reaching for their coat, eager to inflict the most dreadful of miseries upon the nearest child! There aren't many minority groups you're still allowed to criminalize in the modern era, and so it all gets directed at one such group: minor-attracted people.

The 'protection' myth

But is it even about protecting children? O'Carroll, upon the death of Steven Freeman, posted a long article covering the sorry saga of his old friend's demise. Mr. Freeman had been languishing in prison for ten years, for an offense that would in most cases result in a sentence of no more than two to three years. In an article I'm unable to find but remember quite vividly, the sentencing judge at the time stated that Freeman may never be released due to his views. Not his actions, but simply his opinion. Freeman believed that AMSC was not necessarily harmful; that it could be, but wasn't always. This opinion was apparently sufficient for what turned out to be a life sentence. As for the images and drawings, that were described across the press as being of children being raped, O'Carroll astutely suggests:

What they might have meant, I suspect, is pictures of men and boys (Steve was a BL) making love. That would have been a more threatening breach of taboo: to depict children as active, willing participants in such acts was to challenge the dogma that such a thing is impossible.

Indeed, the word "rape" is often misused to describe a statutory offense rather than an act of violence, quite an insult to victims of the latter. O'Carroll's article quotes a closer friend of Freeman's, who wrote:

A talented writer and artist with strains of stubbornness and fatalism that led more than once to disaster and tragedy, it is particularly sad that all of Steve’s cartoons are almost certainly lost. Definitely obscene, with their fantastic storylines, the later ones bore comparison with Beardsley at his most extravagantly lewd. He was determined to live as a paedophile, although his only known intimate relationships were with admired older men, one of whose names he chose as his post-PIE identity – although the delicious, multi-layered irony of “Freeman” may have helped with the choice.

Freeman's crime, it seems, was not one of ever abusing children, but of conscience. Specifically, he refused to bow down to the prevailing narrative of the British state, which had always sought to bully and suppress his intellectual deviance. Also from the close friend's account:

It was a bold move to flee before the 1984 PIE trial and seek political asylum in the Netherlands. After six years, the claim was turned down, as the political atmosphere chilled there as well. But the British extradition case against him also failed, since the Netherlands had no equivalent to any of the offences he was charged with. In the end he was not extradited but deported, based on false assurances by the UK authorities that there were no charges outstanding against him. When he was arrested immediately on arrival, questions were asked in the Dutch Parliament. The UK authorities just shrugged and prosecuted him anyway. But, looking back, these events are enough to demonstrate the purely political nature of the charges against him, and PIE in general.

Yet another example of why the British government should never be trusted, and always resisted. It is never wise to cooperate beyond the bare legal minimum.

Modern liberals are pathetic

One of the issues highlighted by the discussion above is the rather depressing state of modern liberalism, if it can even be called that. Rather than get behind groups that are actually oppressed, such as MAPs, many modern liberals simply choose an already popular cause to celebrate.

"But MAPs aren't oppressed! They are rapists! Children can't consent!"

And yet, I disagree wholly with their assertion.

People under whatever arbitrary age cannot legally consent, but that doesn't mean they cannot consent in reality, unless you are to argue that laws are the sole arbiter of moral justice. The UK enacted the first law criminalizing consensual sex with teenagers in the 1880s, in an act of parliament that also criminalized gay sex. Much like its equivalent movement in the US, the force behind it was a wave of puritanical religious reform that would these days be considered quite anachronistic. The studies that decided AMSC was inherently harmful - that children couldn't meaningfully consent - failed to distinguish between inherent and secondary harm, and those studies that strayed from the one accepted narrative were subject to a storm of outrage that had very little to do with academic integrity.

I have worked with children across the entire K-12 range, and I've been surprised at just how many kids are sexed up at ten versus monk-like at fourteen. That doesn't mean that AMSC has to be criminalized carte blanche. It means that cases should be judged on merit, the same way that we protect adults from sexual exploitation. That's why I co-authored the pro-reform framework, a foundation of which is the 16/12 Age of Consent proposal that protects young people while also respecting autonomy and avoiding unjustified intrusion.

Regardless of the whole consent debate, many modern liberals oppose even those MAPs who are not advocating AMSC at all, and who never seek to engage in sexual contact with minors. 'Left-wing Twitter' Bluesky's policy of immediately banning anyone who describes themself as a MAP is a stark example. These so-called 'liberals' hate MAPs simply because of their feelings and identity. In this regard, these 'liberals' are no better than MAGA supporters, drinking their own kool-aid and screaming their own ridiculous mantras.

What's left for MAPs?

The podcast, with the terrifying concepts it so ominously illuminates, raises serious questions about what MAPs are even supposed to do with themselves. Stripped of any right to conscience, the anglo world view seems to suggest they must live as shriveled and fearful wrecks merely a viewed image away from a spree of violent rapes. To hold opinions that conflict with the entirely wrong and deeply offensive caricature is worthy of life in prison, at least if you find yourself on the wrong side of the British authorities. To view even a cartoon depiction, or generate one privately in your own home, justifies arrest and a thorough dragging through the mud. Anything other than the most self-hating and degrading view of oneself is entirely unacceptable.

If the only way to be considered a part of society (and to be safe) is to delude yourself with the most depressing and mentally damaging of falsehoods, then the only way to retain a sense of dignity is to rebel. And in that case, how far do you go? Because once you've crossed the line from 'safe' to 'not safe', and realized that society is lying to you, you may end up going a lot further than you ever would have done if the laws were just and reasonable, and if your conscience were treated with even the slightest modicum of respect. As I explained in my article The Push, the western world is playing a very dangerous game.