‘A boy in the bush is worth two in the hand, I think I can help you get through your exams’
In 1983 The Sun ran an expose on the Manchester Indie band The Smiths, condemning their single ‘Handsome Devil’ as a ‘devious’ song with ‘sleazy lyrics about molesting children’ (plate 1).1 The Conservative MP Geoffrey Dickens, campaigning against the pro-paedophile activist group The Paedophile Information Exchange (hereafter PIE), commented that ‘children look up to top pop personalities, which makes this obscene sounding song potentially even more harmful.’2 The lyrics that The Sun considered sleazy were noted as ‘a boy in the bush is worth two in the hand, I think I can help you get through your exams’. Further fuel was added by Gary Bushall’s article in the music magazine Sounds, who further criticised other Smiths songs as having paedophilic connotations, and lambasted the earlier stance the magazine had taken to his lyrics in light of the events of our first case study: ‘Try telling that to mother of the six year old Brighton boy recently mob raped by paedophiles.’3 This essay will examine the emerging paedophile in mid-1980’s Britain by examining this case of 1983 alongside another prominent Brighton case of 1986. It will explore how dominant understandings of paedophilia emerged from its historic associations with homosexuality, but how the predominantly domesticated reality of child abuse conflicted with Thatcherism’s aggressive reassertion of family values as a central pillar of its moral reaction. It argues that definitions of and explanations for paedophilia and its subsequent ‘othering’ could be associated with and labelled upon differing marginalised groups, predominantly outside of an increasingly idealised heteronormative ‘nuclear’ family, and shifted according to historic context.
The accusations directed at The Smiths, regardless of their validity, are demonstrative of a shift in understandings of paedophilia during the 1980s. As we will later demonstrate, homosexuality and paedophilia have shared a long and often inseparable history in definition and discourse, the remnants of which can be seen during the early 1980s. Morrissey’s tendency to focus his lyrics upon societal issues, such as teen pregnancy, corporal punishment and sexuality ensured that controversy surrounded their ‘appropriateness’ throughout his career. What made these ‘issues’ so potent were Morrissey’s often prolific and polemical statements to the press which often echoed the sentiments within his lyrics. It was easily inferred, therefore, that his lyrics were autobiographical. Furthermore, as Raphael states, Morrissey’s use of ‘I/Me/You within the fictionalised mini-narrative – in which the author takes the leading role – heightens the dramatic effect of the voyeuristic sense’.4 Morrissey’s insistence that the truth of his own sexuality was ‘all within the lyrics’ provided, for many, the answer to the enigma surrounding his sexuality, but he also had tacitly implied a tolerance of or interest in child abuse by the same logic. However, whilst the homosexual connotations within his lyrics were identified as proof of his homosexuality, it was never assumed that Morrissey was speaking autobiographically about his own experiences of being sexually abused as a child, which he details in his 2013 autobiography.5 This event has hitherto been historicised predominantly as simply the first of Morrissey’s many tussles with the press and the establishment over controversial issues. More broadly, however, his politicised lyrics locked into the social and cultural divide caused by Thatcherism, and his involvement in events such as Red Wedge echoed those championed by prominent figures of the 1960s counter culture, and whose influence Thatcher abhorred.6 Moreover, this song has been dislocated from others written by The Smiths during the period which focus upon the devastating effects of child abuse, such as Suffer Little Children, which examines the horror and legacy of the ‘Moors Murders’ of the 1960s. The tension between the overt and the implied sexuality of the author throughout the song is in many ways key to the central theme of this essay: ‘strange’. The scandal served to support a connection that had existed between homosexuality and paedophilia, which shifted over our time period. As Morrissey stated in NME About the event, ‘…if you dare to get too personal with politics, too close, then it’s a strange person, let’s get him on the guillotine.’7
As Angeldies notes, ‘…as a discourse paedophilia, like homosexuality, is a decidedly western invention of the later nineteenth century.’8 Paedophilia was identified, and remained for a good deal longer than homosexuality, as a ‘temporary aberration’, to redeploy Foucault’s terms regarding homosexuality.’9 Havelock Ellis described paedophilia as ‘occasional luxurious speciality of a few over refined persons’, whereas Freud described paedophilia as a ‘sporadic aberration’ and he who exhibits paedophilia as someone ‘who is cowardly or who has become impotent’.10 Of principal concern to sexologists were sexual deviations with respect to the gender of object choice, not the age of object choice. The twentieth century, however, saw profound changes in discourses surrounding sexuality, and the axis of age and the distinction between child and adult sexuality became of utmost concern. Philip Jenkins describes the period between the late 1950s to the mid-1970s as the ‘liberal period’, a time when dominant psychiatric discourses downplayed the severity of sex offences.11 ‘The great majority of the offenders against children are not physically dangerous’, declared the Britsih Medical Journal, ‘since they did not use force and since they seldom attempted coitus’.12 Many others, including Revitch and Weiss, similarly highlighted the ‘rarity of serious sexual aggressions against children’.13 Chas Critcher has stated that before the 2000 case of Sarah Payne, the British ‘press coverage of paedophilia was minimal.’14 However, both of our case studies, of 1983 and 1986, were featured extensively in both local and national press. Paedophilia, as it is now termed, could be located using many differing expressions apart from ‘paedophile’, which was an infrequent term deployed within our case studies. As Jenkins notes, by the late 1980s the ‘figure of the paedophile had become one of the most terrifying folk-devils imagined in recent British history.’15 Just as the ‘homosexual’ was elevated and scrutinised to centre stage at the turn of the nineteenth century, with heightened focus in Britain during the early to mid-twentieth century, the figure of the ‘paedophile’ emerged as a highly salient and potent figure during the latter half of that century.16 Its presence, however, was far from static, and shifted according to specific context.
On August 16th 1983, a six-year-old boy, whose identity was never revealed, was kidnapped from a quiet street in Brighton by three men and subjected to a series of sexual assaults, before being abandoned in Newhaven. Despite an intensive police operation, and over £50,000 in reward money being raised by public and media donations, the perpetrators were never found. The ‘Stranger Danger’ campaign, recently revised in 1981, was the key message re-presented to children throughout Brighton’s school.17 However, the nature of the attack in Brighton – an all-male rape – ensured that the ‘stranger’ was believed to easily identifiable within its gay community. Suspicion initially fell on the gay community of Brighton – one particular news report in the Daily Mail focused on exposing what was deemed the ‘secret side of Brighton’18, and the police promised confidentiality to ‘any homosexuals coming forward with any information’.19 This suspicion was eventually transferred to three ‘foreign’ men who were spotted in the locality shortly after the boy was abducted20; although an extensive search for a car with German plates was carried out by Interpol, no one was ever prosecuted for the assault. The impact of what came to be known as the Brighton Beasts case on the way in which paedophilia was viewed was threefold. Firstly, after a few years of relative silence upon the matter, the media began a renewed campaign against the Paedophile Information Exchange. Secondly, the focus on ‘stranger danger’ as a national issue for parents, police, the government and educators intensified. Thirdly, that the links in the media and in the national psyche between homosexuals and paedophiles, already present and heightened due to sporadic but recent cooperation between the Gay Liberation Front (hereafter GLF) and PIE on the issue of lowering the age of consent, became more deeply entrenched.
While the attention given to the case in national newspapers was fairly understated at first, the tabloids prioritised the event to front-page status following The Sun’s offering a reward in return for a conviction of the abusers.21 Indeed, it is noteworthy that other attempted kidnappings or attacks on children that occurred during the time period are dealt with in a few brief sentences22. It can thus be argued that the ‘Brighton Beasts’ case is particularly media-friendly; as the perpetrators were never identified, there was no ‘closure’ to the incident, allowing for speculation and tangential stories, for example the focus on the gay community of Brighton. The desire to metaphorically partition off the sexual threat as being separate from the main metropolitan area can be seen clearly by the treatment of the ‘homosexuals of Brighton’ by the media and local residents; in the days following the attack in 1983, links were quickly made between the perpetrators and the gay community of Brighton, located by the media in Kemp Town, or as the Sun dubbed it, ‘Camp Town.’ By August 17th, the police was already ‘making enquiries among the homosexual community’, and had ‘pledged confidentiality to any homosexual who came forward with information’.23 Indeed, DCI Geoffrey Randall felt the need to insist that ‘I know they are feeling very defensive about the incident, because the media have made it look as though we are blaming them’.24 (plate 2) While the crime was between three men and a boy, it is clear that the media deployed no differentiation between the desire for consensual sexual relations with grown men, and the desire to sexually abuse minors – the gay community of Britain at the time was indeed plagued with accusations of paedophilia, due to both the real and imagined links between organisations like the GLF and PIE.
Kemp Town thus became physically located as the source of sexual threat in Brighton, a situation that the gay community were well aware of – by August 18th, £500 had been donated by ‘all the gays in the community who want to see these men arrested,’25 and the Daily Mail reported that ‘it became clear that the gay community almost as one was mounting a massive effect of support for the police’.26 However, it cannot be assumed that what can be described as the metaphorical ghettoisation of Kemp Town was due entirely to homophobia, ignorance or the societal need to create scapegoats; the desire to ‘other’ the perpetrators of the sexual assault needs to be taken into account. Kemp Town, being locally known for its reputation as the ‘gay village’, provided an easily identifiable – and more importantly – sufficiently ‘different’ location on which to focus all the fears and suspicion of the community. Interestingly, the gay community itself was not innocent in the process of ‘othering’ the offenders – though this process appears to be more due to a fear of reprisal attacks and increased prejudice than the need to specifically locate and partition off the danger inherent in the community27. A Daily Mail article on August 19th interviewed local gay men, who were clearly defensive – the crime was blamed variously on ‘somebody foreign, maybe a tourist’ or Aran and Iranian language students.28 Without convictions, the ‘Brighton Beasts’ embodied the folk-devil that Jenkins locates in his studies. The perpetrators are not only ‘othered’ by the media by their criminal actions, but were also suspected to be located and harboured within a distinct and ‘different’ group of people, with whom paedophilia had been long associated. The gay community, most likely out of fear, were reported to have rejected this assumption and in turn located the paedophiles outside of their community and onto another marginalised one – ‘the foreigner.’
Established in 1975, PIE had endeavoured to create a ‘collective identity for paedophiles,’ and drew upon liberation models that the GLF had utilised. As Lucy Robinson notes, ‘conservative anxiety had switched its focus from homosexuality to paedophilia’ and for a brief period of time the lines of defence for the those in the gay left seemed as though they should shift too, with numerous debates surrounding paedophilia appearing in the Gay Left magazine.29 As Robinson notes, PIE was effectively over by 1979, however the Brighton Beasts case drew its existence to the fore once again, alongside a number of notable children’s homes’ child-abuse scandals.30 PIE were not directly involved in any of these cases, nor that of the Brighton ‘Beasts’ case, however as Robinson asserts, they became a ‘polemical expression of the general tenor of the period.’31 The refocused spotlight onto the non-functioning group acted as a victory to the Brighton and other such cases of child-abuse. Moreover, it provided the media with an opportunity to de-construct the ‘charming man’ image of reason that PIE has strived to attain. The Sun, like numerous tabloids, published expose stories, utilizing long published PIE material, suggesting they were contemporarily sourced. The word ‘Paedophile’ had in effect been reclaimed by the press; the group are referred to as PIE, scum or perverts (plate 3). Despite all of those named in the articles having been regularly featured in the press exposes of the late 1970’s, the members are represented to the audience as if for the first time, having been previously covert. The stranger is identified as a distinct, organised and dangerous collective, outside of heteronormativity.
The decades of the 1970s and 1980s have been historicised as a watershed in the transformation of gender and sexual relations in many Western societies. Although never static, such relations were rapidly, profoundly and irrevocably transformed by the accumulated efforts of, among other things, gay liberation, second wave feminism and the child sexual abuse movement.32 Normative men and hegemonic masculinity were particularly being exposed by feminists as positions of privilege in need of critical interrogation and transformation. Angeldies locates the early 1980’s child sexual abuse feminism, coupled with the anti-rape feminism which began in the 1970’s as ‘hitting the heart of gender relations and normative masculinity’.33 Yet despite a long established insistence that the abuse of women and children was predominantly inflicted by a man known to the victim, media-based discourses, largely fortified by sociological research in the late 1970s, held that the stranger was the increasing threat to the nuclear family. The mid 1980’s, however, saw a dramatic shift in the acknowledged medical stance upon consent and abuse, with Summit’s landmark article ‘The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome’ of 1984, which argued that ‘no matter what the circumstances, the child had no choice but to submit quietly’.34 Crucially, it stated that ‘the majority of adults who molest children occupy a kinship or a trusted relationship.’35
On 10th October 1986, the bodies of Karen Hadaway and Nicola Fellowes were found in undergrowth in Moulsecoombe Wild Park; subsequent investigation showed that one of the girls had been sexually assaulted before both had been killed. While initial reports focused on the possibility that the girls had been murdered by an unknown stranger, the police investigation quickly switched to focusing on the residents of Moulsecoombe. Despite undertaking one of the largest investigations in the history of the force, including face-to-face interviews with 7,000 residents of the estate and a well-publicised reconstruction of the crime, a perpetrator was never convicted. Nevertheless, a local builder, Russell Bishop, who was a neighbour of the girls, was initially arrested for the murders; although he was acquitted in court, his assumed guilt became established local knowledge, which was felt to be vindicated in December 1990, when he was convicted and jailed for life for the abduction and attempted murder of another local girl. As in the case of the Brighton ‘Beasts’, the Say No to Strangers campaign from 1981 was shown to all local schools, however the realities of the case forced police to adapt their definition of what ‘stranger’ now meant (plate 4).36
During the ‘Say No’ speech to Moulescoombe children, but not included on the news broadcast which featured them doing so, the policeman in charge of the campaign was noted in The Times as adding ‘even if you’ve seen someone many times, even if you know that he lives next door, then please children remember he is still a stranger’.37 Similarly to how the ‘danger’ present in Brighton in 1983 was initially presented as originating in the gay community/ Kemp Town, and then transferred to the ‘foreigners’ spotted in the locality, there appears to be a desire to ‘other’ the threat posed to children in 1986; the entire Moulsecoombe estate was located as a centre of potential danger by both the media and local government. In the Brighton Beasts case, the gay community and the unidentified foreigners were the ‘othered’ danger, yet in 1986, there was little opportunity for the media and local population to create a scapegoat from a marginal group. Thus, the estate of Moulsecoombe appears to be located in the discourse surrounding the cases as entirely separate from Brighton – the community of Moulsecoombe, and in fact the physical area itself, is ‘othered’. The treatment of Moulsecoombe shows a definite desire to situate the estate as a separate part of Brighton; the news reports seldom refer to the city as a whole when discussing the case, and the ways in which the area is described conjures up an image of deprivation, crime and violence – for example the Times article on 14th October, that mentioned the ‘mean lanes of the sprawl’, the need for ‘solid police work’ in the area, and ‘the corrosive impotence of men made passive by unemployment and unrewarding jobs’.38 Crucially, this demonization of the working-class community of Moulscoombe speaks to a far broader re-definition of who abuses children in the mid-1980’s and early 1990’s. Sociological research, such as that conducted by Fontaine, suggested that known paedophiles derived from working-class backgrounds, with low degrees of intelligence.39
While paedophilia and murder are not necessarily shown to be a direct consequence of the social issues affecting the area, the simple fact that they are discussed so frequently appears to be an attempt to draw a distinct line between the ‘dangerous’ Moulsecoombe estate and the rest of Brighton. Indeed, in one particular incident the social issues portrayed as affecting the community are blamed directly for the murders – a local councillor, Goldie Gardner, was quoted as saying ‘I would be blaming myself for what happened… I am well acquainted with the Moulsecoombe estate… people living there cannot but be aware of the dangers that exist in a deprived community of that kind’.40 Although public outcry swiftly led to her resignation, it remains obvious that to some observers, the portrayal of Moulsecoombe as deprived and dangerous sufficed to explain the events of the summer of 1986. Furthermore, another aspect to the paradoxical reactions of the families and friends of the girls is the suggestion that their desire for the perpetrator to be unknown to them was a way of defending their community. While the residents of Moulsecoombe were being ‘othered’ by the media and public opinion, the girls’ family and friends were simultaneously ‘othering’ the perpetrators by locating them outside of the estate. Indeed, this can be interpreted as an attempt to escape the collective guilt of the residents of the estate – by believing that the murderer was not a resident of Moulsecoombe, they were able to insist that their home was not as dangerous or lawless as its media portrayal suggested while alleviating the potential guilt of not managing to prevent the murders from taking place.
Although this case received a vast amount of local and national newspaper coverage, it is clear from changes in the standard formats of some newspapers during the coverage that its presence within its pages called for certain revisions in order to do so. The Sun, for example, provided the largest amount of coverage of the case; frequently dedicating its front pages to pictures of Karen and Nicola, with numerous columns throughout its publication. Before the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, which amongst other things fixed the minimum age of topless modelling at eighteen, The Sun frequently featured models from the age of sixteen. It also provided ‘countdowns’ to girls sixteenth birthdays, most famously in the case of Samantha Fox, who went topless for The Sun days after her sixteenth birthday in 1983, following an extensive prelude enticing its readers.41 Although it continued to feature its trademark topless ‘page three girl’ throughout the coverage, it is significant that a now defunct feature of page three was omitted during both of our cases. Since page three went ‘topless’ in 1970 – it previously had featured provocative but clothed women since it’s re-launch by Rupert Murdoch in 1969 – topless models were often photographed alongside their childhood photograph. Captioned with the formulaic title ‘You must have been a beautiful baby..’, the commentary featured phrases such as ‘cute little Karen was a topless beauty at an early age, as you can see’ beneath a picture of the model at the age of three (plate 5).42 This feature, which was omitted during these cases of child rape and/or murder, clearly draws further sexual attention towards not only the models current age, but to her pre-pubescent one. Its removal at these points should be seen as not only an indication of its perceived inappropriateness in light of the events from which was omitted, but it’s reinstatement provides us with a deeper understanding of what paedophilia was not considered to have meant during the mid-1980s. Its editors were, however, aware of the increasingly changeable definition of paedophilia, and by carefully removing the images, they ensured that their audience had, to re-deploy Pearce’s observations regarding homosexuality in the press, ‘broken none of their convoluted rules, and yet [have] lived through the forbidden experiences and gained the additional pleasure of moral indignation.”43
Over the two Brighton cases, the re-definition of the word ‘stranger’ can be observed. In the ‘Brighton Beast’ case, initial suspicion of both the police and media fell upon the gay community of Brighton, before being transferred to three foreign men that had been spotted in the area at the time of the abduction. In contrast, the killer or killers of the ‘Babes in the Wood’ was initially presumed to be the ‘plump, bespectacled, ginger-haired man’ that had been recently viewed around the local area trying to entice children into his car.44 In just three years, the presumed danger to children had changed, from being located in a community that is known and arguably recognisable (through crude stereotypes), to being perpetrated by a complete stranger, whose identity and motive were entirely unknown. Furthermore, when this was proven to be implausible, the community of the victims were ‘othered’ by their class and social standing in order to provide a stranger.
Before the arrest of Bishop in the 1986 case, The Sun ceased to publish any material on the case after they sensationally revealed that ‘Murder Girl’s Dad Is Video Nasty Fan’ (plate 6).45 It had previously featured articles suggesting more broadly that ‘porn can turn men into monsters’,46 and whilst never committing to print that they believed he had committed the rape and murder of his daughter and her friend, with sub-headings like ‘I like to fantasise’ and by adding that he is a ‘jobless’ fan of ‘sick movies’, the suggestion that, at best, he had invited danger into his home is implicit. Crucially, he is identified as strange: ‘Mr Fellows caused a storm with his strange video nasty campaign’.47 As Thatcher has proclaimed in 1984, when the Video Recording Act was passed, banning numerous films: ‘There must be no place in Britain for the video nasty. When that Bill finally reaches the Statute Book, parents everywhere will applaud.’48 In defying this moral stance as a parent, and coupled with his unemployment, a ‘stranger’ was identified within the family, but only due to these considerations, and not because of the statistical likelihood of it being so espoused by academics and feminists.
What can be described as the ‘preferred danger’ can also be seen as changing over the time period. In 1983, it appeared to be preferable that the sexual threat to children took an identifiable form that resulted in the scapegoating of the gay community. However, in 1986, there did not appear to be any desire to form any structured thoughts over who was guilty of the murders until the arrest of Bishop allowed the community to form what could be described as a ‘valid’ perpetrator. Moreover, the reactions of the relatives of the victims in the 1986 case are very significant when tracing the development of the ‘stranger phenomena’. Although the police realised fairly early on into the investigation that it was highly probable that the girls were killed by someone known to them, it is evident that all those personally connected with the girls preferred to believe that the perpetrator(s) of the attack were strangers.
In dominant media representations throughout the 1980’s it was frequently the ‘stranger’ that continued to be identified as the greatest threat to all children. Despite the burgeoning efforts of social scientific and or feminist research, the governmental usage of ‘Stranger Danger’ at a local and nation level further entrenched the notion that an unknown male was more likely to be of danger to children than their guardians and those known to them. The 1980s were far from a nadir of journalistic focus upon paedophilia, as has been suggested, but rather the term ‘paedophile’ was far from fixed in public discourse; firstly due to the terms usage by the pro-child-sex organisation PIE, but chiefly because of the shifting ideas of what the paedophile could and could not be. With legislation introduced to protect the ‘family’ and children from ‘pornographic ‘Video Nasties’, contradictions arose within an already complex and inconsistent legal framework, resulting in the much ridiculed paradox of a sixteen year old being permitted to have sex, film it, but unable in law to watch it back until their eighteenth birthday.49 Moreover, the act of resisting or campaigning against such legislative measures could in turn be used to suggest complicity in a seemingly unrelated case. Morrissey’s choice of album cover for The Smiths seminal album of the same name in many ways unwittingly encapsulates many of considerations of our thesis. Chosen from a still of Andy Warhol’s 1968 film Flesh, Joe Dalasando’s naked yet facially-unidentifiable figure embodies the sexually ambiguous, strange man that characterised the early 1980s idea of the paedophile (Plate 7).50 The films nudity, depictions of male and female prostitution to finance an abortion, and a naked scene with the lead actor and his own child ensured that the film was banned from home video under the 1984 ‘Video Nasties’ legislation. The definition of ‘stranger’ not only shifted according to the sexual nature of the crime, with minority groups targeted by association, but could also be explained by the social standing of a community. Despite the fact that organisations such as Childline, founded in 1986, and the NSPCC continue to cite the family and the home as the most likely cause and location of child abuse, the stranger is still predominantly sought by the media in contemporary cases.51 Although the associations between homosexuality and paedophilia can be seen to have dislocated during our time period, with increasing media focus upon female child abuse, it is important to stress that this does not mean that this was a permanent shift in understanding. Alan Bennett’s Talking Heads television play entitled Playing Sandwiches relies upon this association to allow his audience to believe the character is homosexual, before gradually revealing that he has raped a young child.52 More recently, when presented with a list of suspected paedophiles connected to Operation Yewtree – an operation that had predominantly uncovered the abuse of female children – Prime Minister David Cameron on the television programme This Morning that he was concerned that a ‘gay witch-hunt’ may ensue (plate 8).53
Fundamentally, this essay suggests that the potency of today’s ‘folk-devil’ that is the paedophile lies within the fluidity of definition through which it has transposed throughout the late 20th century. Moreover, it locates the mid-1980s as a particularly salient period in which this process can be readily observed.
Written by Owen Emmerson, Josie Critchland and Rhea Edwards
Printed Primary Sources
Berry-Dee, C & Odell, R, A Question of Evidence: Who Killed the Babes in the Wood? (Virgin Publishing, 1991)
Ellis,H, Psychology of Sex: A Manual for Students (London: William Heinemann, 1933)
Freud, S,Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), The Pelican Freud Library, Vol.7: On Sexuality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977)
La Fontaine, J, Child Sexual Abuse. (Cambridge: Polity Press. 1985)
Morrissey, S, Autobiography, 1st ed. (Penguin, 2013)
Pearce, F, ‘The British Press and the ‘placing’ of male homosexuality’ in Cohen, S & Young, J (eds) The manufacture
news: Social problems, deviance and the mass media. 5th ed. (Constable & Co Ltd, 1981)
Revitch, E and Weiss, R, “The Pedophilic Offender’, Diseases of the Nervous System (February 1962)
Summit, R “The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome’, Child Abuse and Neglect 7 (1984)
The Daily Mail 1983-1986
The Sun 1983-1986
The Times 1983-1986
NME – 1983
Sounds – 1983
Album: The Smiths – The Smiths
Single: Handsome Devil – The Smiths
Flesh, Dir. Morrissey, P. Perf. Dallasandro, J. USA, Tartan (1968)
ITV News 13th October, 1986, http://jiscmediahub.ac.uk/record/display/039-00013858 Date accessed 12/11/13
ITV This Morning, This Morning (ITV),7th November, 2012
Talking Heads, Dir. Bennett, A, Perf. Haig, D, UK, 2 Entertain Video (1989)
Say No to Strangers, Dir. Makenzie, J, Perf. Blethyn, B, (Central Office of Information, 1981)
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/105645 accessed 01.11.2013
Chipindale, P, Horrie, C, Stick It Up Your Punter! The Uncut Story of the Sun Newspaper, (Faber and Faber, 2013)
Foucault, M, The History of Sexuality. Volume i: An Introduction, trans, by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1980)
Jenkins, P, Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998)
La Fontaine, J, Child Sexual Abuse. (Cambridge: Polity Press. 1985)
Raphael, A. Never Mind the Bollocks: Women Rewrite Rock (London: Virago, 1995)
Robinson, L, Gay Men and the Left in Post-war Britain: How the Personal got Political, (Manchester University Press,
Silverman, J & Wilson, D, Innocence Betrayed. Paedophilia, the Media and Society, (Polity Press, 2002) p.17
Angeldies, S, ‘The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century’ in Australian Historical Studies 36:126
Cricher, C. Media, Government and Moral Panic: the politics of paedophilia in Britain 2000-1, Journalism Studies, 3:4
Essays in Edited Collections
Pearce, F, ‘The British Press and the ‘placing’ of male homosexuality’ in Cohen, S & Young, J (eds) The manufacture
news: Social problems, deviance and the mass media. 5th ed. (Constable & Co Ltd, 1981)
Mason, R, ‘David Cameron ambushed with paedophile list by Phillip Schofield on This Morning’
1 The Sun, Monday September 5, 1983, p.21
3 Sounds, September 10, 1983, p.6
4 Raphael, A. Never Mind the Bollocks: Women Rewrite Rock (London: Virago, 1995), p.45.
5 Morrissey, S, Autobiography, 1st ed. (Penguin, 2013), p.92
6 Robinson, L, Gay Men and the Left in Post-war Britain: How the Personal got Political, (Manchester University Press, 2007) p.169
7 NME, September 24, 1983, p.6
8 Angeldies, S, ‘The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century’ in Australian Historical Studies, 36:126, p.272
9 Foucault, M, The History of Sexuality. Volume i: An Introduction, trans, by Robert Hurley (New York: Vintage, 1980), p.43.
10 Ellis,H, Psychology of Sex: A Manual for Students (London: William Heinemann, 1933), p.129 Freud, S,Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality (1905), The Pelican Freud Library, Vol.7: On Sexuality (Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1977), p.60.
11 Jenkins, P, Moral Panic: Changing Concepts of the Child Molester in Modern America (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), p.102.
12 Quoted in Jenkins, Moral Panic, p.102.
13 Revitch, E and Weiss, R, “The Pedophilic Offender’, Diseases of the Nervous System (February 1962): p.73.
14 Cricher, C. ‘Media, Government and Moral Panic: the politics of paedophilia in Britain 2000-1’, Journalism Studies, 3:4, p.522
15 Jenkins, Moral Panic, p.99
16 Angeldies, S, ‘The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century’ p.273
17Say No to Strangers, Dir. Makenzie, J, Perf. Blethyn, B, (Central Office of Information, 1981)
18 The Daily Mail, 19th August 1983 p. 6
19The Times, 17th August 1983 p. 2
20The Daily Mail, 23rd August 1983 p. 1
21 The Times, 18th August 1983 p. 1
22 The Daily Mail, 31st August 1983 p. 2
23 The Times, 17th August 1983 p. 2
24 The Times, 18th August 1983 p. 1-2
25 The Times, 18th August 1983, p. 1
26 Daily Mail, August 19th 1983 p.6-7
27 Daily Mail, 19th August 1983 p. 6-7
28 Daily Mail, 19th August, 1983 p.6-7
29 Robinson, L, Gay Men and the Left in Post-war Britain: How the Personal got Political, (Manchester University Press, 2007) p.129.
30 Wolmar, C, Forgotten Children: The Secret Abuse Scandal in Children’s Homes, (London, Vision, 2000) p.142.
31 Robinson, L, Gay Men and the Left in Post-war Britain: How the Personal got Political, (Manchester University Press, 2007) p.138.
32 Angeldies, S, ‘The Emergence of the Paedophile in the Late Twentieth Century’, p.280.
33 Ibid, p.282.
34 Summit, R “The Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome’, Child Abuse and Neglect 7 (1984): 182.
35 Ibid, p.180
36 Berry-Dee, C & Odell, R, A Question of Evidence: Who Killed the Babes in the Wood? (Virgin Publishing, 1991), p.72
37 ITV News 13th October, 1986, http://jiscmediahub.ac.uk/record/display/039-00013858 Date accessed 12/11/13 “Court and Social: Awful disquiet invades Brighton estate / Moulsecoomb.” The Times (London). (October 14 1986 , Tuesday ): 768 words. Nexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/01/07.
39 La Fontaine, J, Child Sexual Abuse. (Cambridge: Polity Press. 1985) p.198.
40 Daily Mail, 18th October 1986, p.1
41 Chipindale, P, Horrie, C, Stick It Up Your Punter! The Uncut Story of the Sun Newspaper, 1st ed, (Faber and Faber, 2013) p.240
42 The Sun, Friday September 2nd, 1983, p.3
43Pearce, F, ‘The British Press and the ‘placing’ of male homosexuality’ in Cohen, S & Young, J (eds) The manufacture of news: Social problems, deviance and the mass media. 5th ed. (Constable & Co Ltd, 1981) p.307
44 “Murder girls sexually assaulted / Brighton.” The Sunday Times (London). 266 words. Nexis. Web. Date Accessed: 2014/01/07.
45 The Sun, Monday October 20th, 1986, p.2
46 The Sun, Saturday October 11th, 1986, p.3
49 Silverman, J & Wilson, D, Innocence Betrayed. Paedophilia, the Media and Society, (Polity Press, 2002) p.17
50 Flesh, Dir. Morrissey, P. Perf. Dallasandro, J. USA, Tartan (1968)
51 Silverman, J & Wilson, D, Innocence Betrayed. Paedophilia, the Media and Society, (Polity Press, 2002) p.60
52 Talking Heads, Dir. Bennett, A, Perf. Haig, D, UK, 2 Entertain Video (1989)
53Mason, R, ‘David Cameron ambushed with paedophile list by Phillip Schofield on This Morning’