“Bunking off is not the crime” Letter from Roger Moody, Islington Gazette, 23 May 1991 p.8
In March 1991 Roger Moody, pro-paedophile rights campaigner and paedophile political activist, wrote to the Islington Gazette (address given as Liverpool Road, N1), identifying himself “as a youth worker who until recently worked in a school-based youth project”.
Was Roger Moody employed in Islington as a youth worker based within a school? Which school was he working within? Was Islington Council his employer?
Within 18 months of Moody losing his job, the Evening Standard exposed the extent to which Islington’s children’s homes had been infiltrated by paedophiles, pornographers and pimps.
The third meeting of the Conspiracy Against Public Morals committee (PIE’s legal defence publicists, strategists and fundraisers) gathered on 11 September 1979.
Six months’ previously in April 1979 Moody had been acquitted of 4 counts of indecent assault and 1 count of attempted buggery on a 10 year old boy — with the help of a character witness statement from an MP read out in court for his defence.
CAPM attendees included NCCL’s former and future Gay Rights Officers, Nettie (PIE Member No 70) Pollard and Barry Prothero, PIE Chairman and defendant Tom O’Carroll, Fallen Angels Tim Brown and Sandy Marks (future Islington councillor and Chair of Social Services Committee) and Adrian Fulford (now Lord Justice Adrian Fulford — Senior Presiding Judge for England and Wales).
Was Roger Moody the Roger in attendance at the CAPM committee alongside Sandy Marks? If so, was Sandy Marks aware Roger Moody, as an out and proud self-proclaimed paedophile worked with children in Islington and continued to do so until at least 1991? If aware of Moody’s views on the positive benefits paedophiles bring to the social welfare of children when working in child-care roles, did Sandy Marks take any steps once serving on the Social Services Committee from 1982 to ensure Roger Moody’s ability to work with children was curtailed?
James Goudie QC and Holly Stout’s recent report for Islington Council recommends further independent investigation into Sandy Marks and her role in the 1995 White Report, and states that evidence should be examined as to “the nature, extent and duration of Sandy Marks’ involvement in Fallen Angels, and any other pro-paedophile groups;”
Two other pro-paedophile groups with links to Islington were Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) and Paedophile Action for Liberation (PAL), both of which Roger Moody contributed to meetings and newsletters of, hoping to shape their thinking along more radical socialist revolutionary lines.
The extent to which all of these pro-paedophile lobbying groups, including Fallen Angels, were able to gain influence and traction in a council which its own Chief Executive declared “vulnerable to lobbying groups”(1) is the wider context in which to examine Sandy Marks’ conduct, associations and actions, influencers and influence. Therefore Goudie QC’s inclusionary language is to be welcomed. Whether Islington Council listens remains to be seen.