Pursuing natural health & thinking beyond the superficial. Deconstructing Culture.

Introduction to a Well Known Author:

Fairytales are atmospheric, creepy and often cruel showing us temptation in the form of hope usually after great turmoil and sacrifice. They’re not often stories for children but more warnings as Pamela Travers herself claimed she didn’t write the Mary Poppins books for children. To some of us they can be seen as culmination of learning and with her tempestuous life perhaps a yearning – Ms Poppins being someone she wanted to be or wanted to guide her through the storm? Poppins being someone who glided through extremities like only few and a ‘nanny’ (granny, Dark Mother figure – remember the Dark Mother is an honourary title, she doesn’t have to be a Mother).

The remakes of well known fairytales in recent years have emphasized further that they are not really ‘family friendly’ and even modern authors from Roald Dahl to J. K. Rowling have shown us ‘dark’ children’s and young adult fiction, easily read by adults, and yet they hold a map for childhood. Dystopian themes have made it to the forefront of youth fiction – but then did they ever really leave? The scary has always been at home with musical folk tales and poems of old and are always present watching and coming closer to us from the periphery, they sometimes get watered by the likes of Disney but even Disney shows protagonists in danger. Is it a safe ‘threat’ we hanker for like that of a roller coaster where we feel the thrill but never the peril or is there something in us that really wants to fall? We never really face the unknown we just go round in circles, patterns and trends.

But Disney was right to excise from Mary Poppins the Zen mysticism and symbolism, about which academics had preposterously written lectures and learned papers. And although Disney’s songwriters the Sherman Brothers are on record as finding Travers “a hellcat” to work with (“like having two weeks of ulcers”), she comes across in the film as ultimately sympathetic, commanding respect for facing up with spirit to the Disney men. Travers was fond of saying that all women pass through three phases: nymph, mother, crone.

As Lawson writes, in the initial days of Disney’s charm offensive, P L Travers “fell into Walt’s embrace like a lovesick fool, but the fortune he gave her almost made up for the betrayal”. She got $100,000 upfront and 5 per cent of the gross, so she had to forgive “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious” and dancing penguins. And after five years of “uneasy wedlock”, the film emerged – unsubtle, sugary, sentimental; “gorgeous, but all wrapped round mediocrity of thought” – and won five Oscars. Sam Goldwyn wrote an open letter saying everyone in the world should see it. Never mind that Disney’s editions of Mary Poppins books outsold hers; her own sales trebled. She would later say that she had written “a small unpretentious book, but as full of meat as a sausage is. The film made it grandiose, pretentious and took all the stuffing out of the story.” But she always praised Julie Andrews and even thought Dick Van Dyke’s cockney was “really not too bad”. She discussed a possible sequel without objection.

http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2013/12/strange-life-creator-mary-poppins

Was he right to White wash (his own life and business White washed of course)? I love the Mary Poppins film (and I can understand why Emma Thompson was chosen to portray P. L. Travers due to her role as Nanny McPhee – the films of which I didn’t really like – and her bearing in general) but I’m aware there was more going on in her life and in the series. It seems as if Travers got caught up in great knowledge and mixed with great cultural icons who themselves did the same but like many were far too a bohemian, rich, elite set indulgent and immature for the wisdom they sought/practiced.

Too bad we can’t all be like the characters we create and adore; perhaps she wanted Mary Poppins but had some of that in her aunts and would have been better off with Granny/Mistress Weatherwax (another Dark Mother/Witch/Wise Woman/Crone figure) from Terry Pratchett’s ‘Discworld’, whom many of us love… At a distance and with great respect and perhaps some bitterness and begrudgement, and she was the ‘good one’ out of her and her sister 😉 !

What we want and need are sometimes two very different things.

Discerning the Nature of Free Will

In the chapter entitled, “John and Barbara’s Story,” a starling, a wise bird, visits the nursery at Cherry Tree Lane and communes with Mary Poppins and the babies, John and Barbara. Through their conversation, we become aware that the babies, the starling, and Mary Poppins understand the language of the wind, the stars, and the sunlight. However, the starling laments that the children will soon forget everything about where they came from. The children, of course, vehemently protest. Soon, however, they do forget.

This theme is explored further in the chapter entitled, “The New One” in Mary Poppins Comes Back. When the baby Annabel is born, the starling makes another visit, and he turns somersaults on the windowsill, clapping his wings wildly together each time his head comes up. “What a treat!” he pants, when at last he stands up straight. (Now he had someone to whom he could speak again.) The starling asks Annabel to tell the fledgling that accompanies him to tell where she came from:

“I am earth and air and fire and water,” she said softly. “ I come from the Dark where all things have their beginnings. I come from the sea and its tides, I come from the sky and its stars, I come from the sun and its brightness—and I come from the forest of earth. Slowly, I moved at first always sleeping and dreaming. I remembered all I had been and I thought of all I shall be. And when I had dreamed my dream I awoke and came swiftly. I heard the stars singing as I came and I felt warm wings about me. I passed the beasts of the jungle and came through the dark, deep waters.” “It was a long journey! A long journey indeed!” said the starling softly, lifting his head from his breast. “And ah, so soon forgotten!”

This episode is reminiscent of the soul’s encounter with the river Lethe in Greek mythology. The souls of the dead bathe there before they are born, so they will not remember their previous history and choices made before birth (karma) until their life is over. If we knew what happened in past lives with the people we know in the present, we might avoid these people and many of life’s experiences. How can we operate with free will and choice if we know our sacred contracts, asks Caroline Myss, author of Sacred Contracts. In The Secrets of Dr. Traverner, Diane Fortune, the occult fiction writer of the early twentieth century, wrote about a character who refused to come completely into her body because she knew her fate and was afraid to face it. This presents the paradox that from ignorance we exercise free will; from knowledge we forfeit our right to choose.

https://www.theosophical.org/publications/1240

The above link explores symbolism in the Mary Poppins series and Travers was herself an ardent student of mythology and culture which brings us to one of her passions, a passion of intrigue with eternal beauty.

The Allure of Beauty in Death/Slumber, the Conflict of Choosing Between Immortal and Mortal Love:

I’m not going to explain the symbolism in ‘Sleeping Beauty’ such as a the Spinners/Fates/Wheels but simply quote some of Travers’ own words as found in the ‘Afterword‘ of her book ‘About The Sleeping Beauty’. Therein she outlines five versions of the story from different cultures following her own refashioning. Bear in mind that I do not agree with everything.

The idea of the sleeper, of somebody hidden from mortal eye, waiting until the time shall ripen has always been dear to folkly mind – Snow White asleep in her glass coffin, Brynhild behind her wall of fire, Charlemagne in the heart of France, King Arthur in the Isle of Avalon, Frederick Barbarossa under his mountain in Thuringia. Muchukunda, the Hindu King, slept through eons until he was awakened by the Lord Krishna; Oisin of Ireland dreamed of Tir N’an Og for over three hundred years. Psyche in her magic sleep is a type of Sleeping Beauty, Sumerian Ishtar in the underworld may be said to be another. Holga the Dane is sleeping and waiting, and so, they say, is Sir Francis Drake. Quetzalcoatl of Mexico and Virochoca of Peru are both sleepers. Morgan le Fay of France and England and Dame Holle of Germany are sleeping in raths and cairns.

The themes of the sleeper is as old as the memory of man. Where it first arose we do no know. One can never find where myth and fairy tale begin any more than one can find wild wheat growing. They are not invented, that is certain. They germinate from seeds sown by an unknown hand. ‘The Authors’, as the poet William Blake has said, ‘are in Eternity’, and we must be content to leave them there. The story is, after all, what matters.

The appearance of this lady at the Christening [in her version of ‘Sleeping Beauty’] is the great moment of the tale, the hook from which everything hangs. Properly to understand why this is so we must turn to Wise Women in general and their role in the world of men. To begin with they are not mortal women. They are sisters, rather, of the Sirens, kin to the Fates and the World Mothers. As such, as creatures of another dimension, myth and legend have been at pains to embody them in other than human shape – the winged female figures of Homer, the bird headed women of the Irish tales, the wild women of ancient Russia with square heads and hairy bodies and the wisplike Jinn of the Middle East who were not allowed grosser forms than those of fire and smoke. It was to do away with their pantomime image and give them their proper weight and authority that our version provided the Wise Women with their hairless heads of gold and silver and made their golden and silver feet hover a little above the earth as the gods do on the Greek vases. And in dressing them in colours of the spectrum that the Thirteen are parts of the single whole and the opposites complementary.

For it should be remembered that no Wise Woman or Fairy is in herself either good or bad; she takes on one aspect or the other according to the laws of the story and necessity of events. The powers of these ladies are equivocal. They change with changing circumstances; they are as swift to take umbrage as they are to bestow a boon; they curse and bless with equal gusto. Each Wise Woman is, in fact, an aspect of the Hindu goddess, Kali, who carries in her multiple hands the powers of good and evil.

It is clear, therefore, that the Thirteenth Wise Woman becomes the Wicked Fairy solely for the purpose of one particular story. It was by chance that she received no invitation; it might just as well have been one of her sisters. So, thrust by circumstance into her role, she acts according to law.

Up she rises, ostensibly to avenge an insult but in reality to thrust the story and keep the drama moving. She becomes the necessary antagonist, placed there to show that whatever is ‘other’, opposite and fearful, is indispensable an instrument of creation as any force for good. The pulling of the Devas an Asuras in opposite directions churn the ocean of life in the Hindu myth and the interaction of the good and the bad Fairies produces the fairy tale. The Thirteenth Wise Woman stands as the guardian of the threshold, the paradoxical adversary without whose presence no threshold may be passed.

This is the role played in so many stories by the Wicked Stepmother. The true mother, by her very nature, is bound to preserve, protect and comfort; this is why she is so often disposed of before the story begins. It is the stepmother, her cold heart unwittingly cooperating with the hero’s need, who thrusts the child from the warm hearth, out from the sheltering walls of home to find his own true way.

Powers such as these, at once demonic and divine, are not to be taken lightly. They give a name to evil, free it, and bring it to the light. For evil will out, they sharply warn us, no matter how deeply buried…

Without the Wicked Fairy there would have been no story. She not the heroine, is the goddess in the machine.

But if the Prince is a mysterious figure, how much more so is she who is the crux of the story, the maiden of surpassing beauty asleep behind her wall of thorns, she whom men from the beginning of time have pondered on and treasured. I say the beginning of time with intent, for when a woman is the chief character in a story it is a sign of its antiquity. It takes us back to those cloudy eras when the world was rule not, as it was in later years, by a god but by the Great Goddess. Here, as with the Prince, is a heroine who has ostensibly nothing to do, nothing to suffer. She is endowed with every blessing and grace and happy fortune, no slights or indignities are put upon her as is the case with her sister heroines, Show White, Cinderella, Little Two-Eyes, or the Goose Girl. She simply has to follow her fate, prick her finger, and fall asleep. But perhaps – is this what the story is telling us? – perhaps it is not a simple thing to do to faithfully follow one’s fate…

Who is she, this peerless beauty, this hidden sleeping figure that has kindled the imaginations of so many generations and for whom children go about on tiptoe lest she be too soon wakened?

<

[My comment: The Princess is the representative on Earth, the Earth as the creation, she is the illuminated light illuminated from the light of the Mother like the moon to the sun; part divine, part mortal – the link between the Mother and potential creation, and the created. She is the Daughter and in a story involving a love interest she is like Persephone, abducted or tricked into staying in manifestation, separated from the Creator like a tool/weapon/treasure. She is the Fallen, fallen with creation which in itself is fallen because it is no longer with/an immediate part of the Creator. In this story and many she is Fallen by the actions of a Father figure and she is then through transformation of some kind, here it is sleep, rescued by the Dark Mother.]

There are those who see the tale exclusively as a nature myth, as the earth in spring, personified as a maiden, awaking from the long dark sleep of winter; or as a hidden deep in the earth until the kiss of the sun makes it send forth leaves. This is undoubtedly as aspect of the story. But a symbol, by the very fact of being a symbol, has not one sole and absolute meaning. It throws out light in every direction. Meaning comes pouring from it.

As well as being a nature myth, it is also possible that there are elements of a secret and forgotten ritual in the theme, reminders of initiation ceremonies where the neophyte dies – or sleeps – on one level and wakes on another, as a chrysalis wakes into butterfly. Or again it may be that since all fairy tales hark back to myth we are present here at the death and resurrection of a goddess, of Persephone down in the underworld biding her time until she returns to earth.

So, face to face with the Sleeping Beauty – who has long been the dream of every man and the hope of every woman – we find ourselves compelled to ask what is it in us that at a certain moment suddenly falls asleep? Who lies hidden deep within us? And who will come to wake us, what aspect of ourselves?

[My comment: And hopefully they shall not waken us with a kiss.]

Are we dealing here with the sleeping soul and all the external affairs of life that hem it in and hide it’ something that falls asleep after childhood; something that not to waken would make life meaningless? To give an answer, supposing we had it, would be breaking the law of the fairy tale. And perhaps no answer is necessary. It is enough that we ponder upon and love the story and ask ourselves the question.


I think she may have had a more conclusive answer being so well educated and thoughtful in her work and only seemed to naval gaze (as we all do at times) in wistful, poetic moments to make the prose (including her ‘afterword’) richer. Perhaps she thought the keys to the tale/threshold/door were not for us to know.

Or having to cover your head as many people and mostly females of many cultures do worldwide.

From one extreme to another:

I don’t actually mind burkinis, I really like them. I’m not religious or faithful to one culture but I have always had an issue with ‘modesty’ or ‘dressing appropriately for the situation’ (so that doesn’t always mean ‘modest’ because I ‘dress up’ too) and the weather. I personally don’t like revealing all or being too revealing. It’s usually two body parts (face and hands, and I often wear a hat and sometimes gloves even lace Summer gloves anyway) – I’m strange, I both like and dislike the sun, I think I’m partly Goth. My point is that I’ve always had a problem with swimwear; to me it’s just like going out in your underwear especially bikinis and they just get skimpier and skimpier. Waterproof underwear but still underwear, tankinis and two-pieces with shorts i.e. hot pants, or a tiny frill on a one-piece don’t help – they’re just like tokenism to ‘modesty’ and are more like ‘being girly’. It’s not my thing and I hate the hair removal process that goes with baring any skin for a female as well which if you don’t do you’re subject to additional public shame and humiliation. Somehow body hair on a female = dirty and an inability to be clean unlike men who can supposedly stay cleaner than us.

So over the years I’ve researched burkinis and found I like them as an alternative to normal Western swimwear. They do remind me a little of Victorian swimwear but they’re waterproof and a bit like wetsuits without being as heavy, however attitudes towards them are very Victorian. For example:

http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/brit-tourists-in-burkinis-made-to-do-humiliating-walk-of-shame-out-of-algarve-pool-as-swimwear-deemed-not-acceptable/ar-AApad1w?ocid=st

Brit tourists in burkinis made to do humiliating walk of shame out of Algarve pool as swimwear deemed ‘not acceptable for pool’

[Written by] Danya Bazaraa

Maryya Dean and her sister-in-law Hina claim they were told they could not wear their burkinis in the swimming pool while on holiday in Albufeira, Portugal.

They say they were told they ‘must wear a bikini to follow Portuguese culture’, during the incident on July 21 that left them horrified.

The family members were also outraged after a maintenance worker at the pool allegedly made Maryya’s nine-year-old daughter stand up to provide an example of what they should be wearing – a regular swimming costume.

Marrya, who suffers with bipolar disorder, says the week-long trip was supposed to be a getaway for her – but they were all affected by what happened.

They had booked a private apartment which had a pool shared with other flats in the complex.

Maryya, who was on holiday with her four children plus her sister-in-law and other relatives, told the Mirror Online: “Given my cultural background I was wearing a burkini.

“I was approached by the building security manager as someone made a complaint that I was not wearing a bikini and therefore not appropriate to be in the pool.

“I was compared to my nine-year-old daughter who was told to stand up out of the pool to see what she was wearing which I found completely rude – I was told I should wear that to swim.

“I was not allowed to wear swimming gear that I am comfortable in and that was actually made for women like me to wear.”

She said she asked the worker to point to a sign which said only bikinis could be worn, but there were no signs in sight. Maryya, 36, from Chessington, added: “The man then started making cultural references and said that Portuguese people wear bikinis and so should we.

“We were embarrassed as we came out of the pool with with four children and people were watching us like we’d committed a crime.”

Marrya’s sister in law, Hina, 31, was also in the pool wearing a ‘covered swim suit’.

The pair of them were not wearing full burkinis.

Hina described her swim suit as three quarter length leggings with a top which had sleeves down to her elbows, but it was water proof and designed for use in a pool.

She said Marrya’s was a regular swimming suit that also came with three quarter length ‘leggings,’ made for the water.

The kids were all in regular swim wear.

Hina said she spotted a gentleman speaking to Maryya’s younger sister, who was sat on a sun lounger at the time.

She claims he was pointing and said it was apparent there was an issue.

Hina went over to see hear what the problem was, as she said it was intimidating being pointed at.

She heard from the member of the maintenance team that they had received a complaint from a resident about them using the pool.

Hina said: “He said it wasn’t possible for me to be in the pool with clothes on, and said I must wear a bikini.

“We told him it was swimwear but he said ‘you have to wear a bikini or shorts. In Portuguese culture, it’s not acceptable.’ He said we had to abide by Portuguese culture if we were in the country.

“We told him we didn’t wear bikinis because we weren’t comfortable in them. It was a confidence thing.

“But he kept repeating ‘you have to wear a bikini’. We were feeling really humiliated.”

Hina said they wore more modest swimsuits for a mix of reasons – religious, cultural, confidence and comfort.

The sisters-in-law said they were the only family using the pool at the time but that people watched the incident from their balconies and they said it was “embarrassing”.

Maryya said they didn’t feel they could use the pool for the rest of their holiday after what happened, despite it being “baking hot”.

She said: “I keep thinking about it. We had to do a ‘walk of shame’ back to the apartment, it was disgusting.”

Firstly it’s just some man not even a lifeguard complaining about them, secondly he’s telling them they have to wear a bikini or shorts like he tells women what to wear, and thirdly he acts like he doesn’t even know what a one-piece if – why a bikini? Men wear t-shirts and/or proper shorts all the time on the beach or a proper shorts and/or a vest in pools. They have the choice to wear more risqué pieces but they have the choice.

I’d wear a burkini and I don’t give a damn, but then I usually wear a leotard with full sleeves and proper shorts in pools anyway (not that I like public pools and chlorine) or full lycra leggings (or shorts with a sarong) on a beach and people have not harassed me yet. That said I’ve not bothered with hair removal at times either. I still get compliments like “little mermaid” even though I’m more obviously dressed for aerobics than swimming but lycra is waterproof and people better not start with me.

Note – not all burkinis have a head covering and I’d think many Western women would find them cute too:

Either way, they look like and are sportswear and if women who wear them don’t mind or at least don’t ban or put down women who wear practically nothing as normal then why should we mind them being ‘decent’ as normal?

We’re finally used to seeing pregnant women on beaches (Madonna being the first obvious public example which sparked a trend years ago, though she has always been an extreme trailblazer in sexuality and gender politics – and I’m not a fan) and in clothing that isn’t too different in style from what they’d normally wear, we’re getting used to breastfeeding women (gawd we do sound backwards as a species don’t we) so why do we have to fight so much about what women wear to swim? As long as they’re not likely to drown (t-shirts banned in some places because of the way they swell in water) what’s the problem? We still see barely any clothing on women in tennis, figure skating or gymnastics for example and I remember judges looking down on me for wearing shorts in gym competitions because everyone else would wear leotards only including low cut, high leg ones even though we were children whilst the boys were allowed shorts and leggings – what is the bloody problem in dressing comfortably? I’ve seen volleyball playing with sticky tape on their arses (kinesiology) for crying out loud – just wear shorts they’ll give you support and don’t act like women’s volleyball and much of women’s televised and most popular sports aren’t about ‘the babes’.

Also remember that not all religious or very culturally minded women wear these and probably never will, many wear regular Western style swimwear and are fine with that and that’s their business but for some of these women if it wasn’t for swimwear like burkinis they wouldn’t be able to go in the water or to a beach at all.

I respect the young girl who was raped i.e. arranged marriage, to an old man, and then told by another ‘old man’ aka an ‘angel’ on behalf of an even older ‘man’ aka ‘God’ that she was having a special boy/son who was later called ‘the son of Man’ and even later ‘the Son of God’ and the baby was visited by ‘three Kings/Wise men’ (always the ‘three’). That poor girl her whole life and body was dominated by men, human and otherwise, and mansplaining. She had no chance, her existence was all planned out – if ‘he’ the chosen one, her son, was born knowing what would happen why choose to have his Mother’s life mapped out as well? He didn’t like how hard his life was/the direction in which it went and he knew in advance – both intentionally and unintentionally demonstrating that knowing something and go through it are two different things so why add to that and choose a girl who had no life/opportunity/choice at all? At least he could talk to God (or someone) and perhaps get an answer, she couldn’t at all as far as we know and it sounds like God or he and God (if they were even related in an immediate familial sense) picked a vulnerable/easily taken advantage of person to impose their plan(s) on. How nice. How good. Not. That is one of the types of innocent they were supposed to protect no? And no it wasn’t an honour or even an obligation/honour of duty as she may have seen it, she didn’t have a choice – she was a young girl she couldn’t make such big decisions herself let alone with informed, understood consent and she shouldn’t have had to – her choices were made for her. A child like the children in the world today who are married off and/or are children who have children and many of the rest of us in the world agree that even though it’s cultural we have moved on and/or we don’t like it/it’s not right and those who don’t mind are either of the ‘it’s not our children and there’s not much we can do about it so we don’t bother/just leave them to it’ mentality and those that want that kind of thing are deemed pedophiles.

Her festival including fasting period is almost overshadowed and even undone by:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfiguration_of_Jesus

‘The Feast of the Transfiguration of Jesus is celebrated by the most Christian denominations on August 06, 2017. Transfiguration is considered a major feast, numbered among the twelve Great Feasts in Orthodoxy. In all these churches, if the feast falls on a Sunday, its liturgy is not combined with the Sunday liturgy, but completely replaces it.

The Transfiguration is the second of the “Three Feasts of the Saviour in August”, the other two being the Procession of the Cross on August 1 and the Icon of Christ Not Made by Hand on August 16. The Transfiguration is preceded by a one-day Forefeast and is followed by an Afterfeast of eight days, ending the day before the Forefeast of the Dormition.

The Transfiguration of Jesus is an event reported in the New Testament in which Jesus is transfigured and becomes radiant upon a mountain. Jesus and three of his apostles go to a mountain (the Mount of Transfiguration). On the mountain, Jesus begins to shine with bright rays of light, the prophets Moses and Elijah appear next to him and he speaks with them. Jesus is then called “Son” by a voice in the sky, assumed to be God the Father, as in the Baptism of Jesus.

In Christian teachings, the Transfiguration is a pivotal moment, and the setting on the mountain is presented as the point where human nature meets God: the meeting place for the temporal and the eternal, with Jesus himself as the connecting point, acting as the bridge between heaven and earth.

So even though I’m not Catholic or Christian I wouldn’t mind showing respect to this great female icon and I already have shown her recognition and sympathy by posting this and acknowledging this day two weeks ago but I don’t and didn’t need to fast even if I was of the necessary religious persuasion. Know why? I’m vegan and I fast/abstain more than that every day and I don’t even see it as fasting, vegans act every day for a better world via compassion to other creatures, the environment, human health and their own health. We don’t do too badly by the ethos of the New Testament do we. (Ha just recently I told a cleric I wasn’t going to have honey no matter what and outlined the reasons why even though it’s seen in many texts and science as a cure-all even in treatment for what I suffer from, so there. At first he was surprised and laughing but when I said I don’t laugh at his beliefs and it’s not funny he apologized, listened and quickly learned my ethos to be kind to all creatures great and small as something to be respected.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormition_of_the_Mother_of_God

“Dormition of the Virgin” redirects here.

The Dormition of the Mother of God (Greek: Κοίμησις Θεοτόκου, Koímēsis Theotokou often anglicized as Kimisis, Slavonic: Успение Пресвятыя Богородицы, Uspenie Presvetia Bogoroditsi) is a Great Feast of the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches which commemorates the “falling asleep” or death of Mary the Theotokos (“Mother of God”, literally translated as God-bearer), and her bodily resurrection before being taken up into heaven. It is celebrated on August 15 (August 28, N.S. for those following the Julian Calendar) as the Feast of the Dormition of the Mother of God. The Armenian Apostolic Church celebrates the Dormition not on a fixed date, but on the Sunday nearest August 15.

Dormition fast

The Feast of the Dormition is preceded by a two-week fast, referred to as the Dormition Fast. From August 1 to August 14 (inclusive) Orthodox and Eastern Catholics fast from red meat, poultry, meat products, dairy products (eggs and milk products), fish, oil, and wine. The Dormition Fast is a stricter fast than either the Nativity Fast (Advent) or the Apostles’ Fast, with only wine and oil (but no fish) allowed on weekends. As with the other Fasts of the Church year, there is a Great Feast that falls during the Fast; in this case, the Transfiguration (August 6), on which fish, wine and oil are allowed.

In some places, the services on weekdays during the Fast are similar to the services during Great Lent (with some variations). Many churches and monasteries in the Russian tradition perform the lenten services on at least the first day of the Dormition Fast. In the Greek tradition, during the Fast either the Great Paraklesis (Supplicatory Canon) or the Small Paraklesis is celebrated every evening except Saturday evening and the Eves of the Transfiguration and the Dormition.[1]

The first day of the Dormition Fast is a feast day called the Procession of the Cross (August 1), on which day it is customary to have an outdoor procession and perform the Lesser Blessing of Water.

Significance of the feast

In Orthodoxy and Catholicism, in the language of the scripture, death is often called a “sleeping” or “falling asleep” (Greek κοίμησις; whence κοιμητήριον > coemetērium > cemetery, “a place of sleeping”). A prominent example of this is the name of this feast; another is the Dormition of Anna, Mary’s mother. [My comment – remember Anna and Anna-Marie stem from Ishtar and Inanna.]

Up until the 5th century Church Fathers do not mention the Dormition of the Virgin and to the 6th century Dormition was not celebrated among the Christians as a holy day.[2]

For example, Epiphanius of Salamis, a Jew by birth, born in Phoenicia, converted to Christianity in adulthood and lived as a monk for over 20 years in Palestine with 335-340 for 362 years, writes in “Panarion” in “Contra antidicomarianst” about the death of the Virgin Mary following: “If any think [ I ] am mistaken, moreover, let them search through the scriptures any neither find Mary’s death, nor whether or not she died, nor whether or not she was buried — even though John surely traveled throughout Asia. And yet, nowhere does he say that he took the holy Virgin with him. Scripture simply kept silence because of the overwhelming wonder, not to throw men’s minds into consternation [my comment – I doubt it was out of wonder and/or respect, morelike patriarchy like some people’s gospels downplaying Mary Magdalene’s role]. For I dare not say — though I have my suspicions, I keep silent. Perhaps, just as her death is not to be found, so I may have found some traces of the holy and blessed Virgin.[3]” “The holy virgin may have died and been buried — her falling asleep was with honor, her death in purity, her crown in virginity. Or she may have been put to death — as the scripture says, “And a sword shall pierce through her soul” — her fame is among the martyrs and her holy body, by which light rose on the world, [rests] amid blessings. Or she may have remained alive, for God is not incapable of doing whatever he wills. No one knows her end. But we must not honor the saints to excess; we must honor their Master. It is time for the error of those who have gone astray to cease.[4]” Christians in the late 4th century had different opinions regarding Mary’s death; some believed that she was martyred. For this reason, Ambrose, for example, wrote: “Neither the letter of Scripture nor Tradition does not teach us that Mary had left this life as a consequence of suffering from bodily ulcers.”[5]

The events of the Dormition of the Virgin, and the burial of several known apocrypha: “Tale of the Dormition of the Virgin” Pseudo-John the Theologian (V emerged in the mid-century or later),[6] “De transitu Virginis Mariae” Pseudo-Melito of Sardis (5th century),[7] the composition of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite, “According to John, Archbishop of Thessalonica.” One of these apocrypha placed in the “History of the Church” Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos.[8] All listed Apocrypha quite late (5th and 6th century) and differ from each other content.

Therefore, the Church was not taken all their content, but only the basic idea that the Virgin Mary blissfully rested and Her soul was adopted by her Son Jesus Christ at Dormition. According to Nikephoros Kallistos Xanthopoulos in his “History of the Church,” the emperor Maurice (582—602), issued an edict which set the date for the celebration of the Dormition – August 15.[9] After that Christians in the empire began to celebrate the death of the Virgin Mary. Patriarch of Jerusalem Modestus (630—632) preaching, said at this celebration, regrets the lack of specific information about the death of the Virgin Mary.[10] In Rome the feast called Dormitio Beatae Virginis set by Pope Sergius I (687-701), borrowed from Constantinople.[11]

According to later Catholic tradition, Mary, having spent her life after Pentecost supporting and serving the nascent Church, was living in the house of the Apostle John, in Jerusalem, when the Archangel Gabriel revealed to her that her death would occur three days later. The apostles, scattered throughout the world, are said to have been miraculously transported to be at her side when she died. The sole exception was Thomas, who had been delayed. He is said to have arrived three days after her death in a cloud above her tomb and to have seen her body leaving to heaven. He asked her “Where are you going, O Holy One?” and then she took off her girdle and gave it to him and said “Receive this my friend” then she disappeared.[12] Thomas was taken to his fellow Apostles and asked to see her grave so that he could bid her goodbye. Mary had been buried in Gethsemane, according to her request. When they arrived at the grave, her body was gone, leaving a sweet fragrance. An apparition is said to have confirmed that Christ had taken her body to heaven after three days to be reunited with her soul. Orthodox theology teaches that the Theotokos has already undergone the bodily resurrection which all will experience at the second coming, and stands in heaven in that glorified state which the other righteous ones will only enjoy after the Last Judgment.[13]

Dormition versus Assumption

The Dormition of the Theotokos is celebrated on August 15 (August 28, N.S. for those following the Julian Calendar), the same calendar day as the Roman Catholic Feast of the Assumption of Mary. The Dormition and the Assumption are different names for the same event, Mary’s departure from the earth, although the beliefs are not necessarily identical.

The Orthodox Church specifically holds one of two Roman Catholic alternative beliefs, teaching that Mary died a natural death, like any human being; that her soul was received by Christ upon death; and that her body was resurrected on the third day after her repose, at which time she was taken up, bodily only, into heaven when the apostles, miraculously transported from the ends of the earth, found her tomb to be empty.[14]

While some Roman Catholics agree with the Orthodox that this happened after Mary’s death, others hold that she did not experience death and she was “assumed” into heaven in bodily form, just as her son Jesus ascended. However, Pope Pius XII alludes to the fact of her death at least five times, but left open the question of whether or not Mary actually underwent death in connection with her departure, in his Apostolic constitution, Munificentissimus Deus (1950), which dogmatically defined ex cathedra (i.e., infallibly) the Assumption.

On 25 June 1997 during a General Audience Pope John Paul II stated that Mary experienced natural death prior to her assumption into Heaven, stating:

It is true that in Revelation death is presented as a punishment for sin. However, the fact that the Church proclaims Mary free from original sin [my comment – sex though note that being raped and taken advantage of sexually in any way is still sex/sexual it’s not the victim’s fault and they are still innocent, perhaps even ‘innocent’ sexually in some people’s eyes too] by a unique divine privilege does not lead to the conclusion that she also received physical immortality. The Mother is not superior to the Son [my comment – was she not a chosen one as well? Who suffered and died not only for ‘God’/’his’ but for people as well?] who underwent death, giving it a new meaning and changing it into a means of salvation. Involved in Christ’s redemptive work and associated in his saving sacrifice, Mary was able to share in his suffering and death for the sake of humanity’s Redemption [my comment – ‘redemption’ nothing much has happened since has it? And the ‘second coming’ is supposedly about humanity’s ‘ascension’ – we haven’t even made up for any of our ‘crimes’ yet]. What Severus of Antioch says about Christ also applies to her: “Without a preliminary death, how could the Resurrection have taken place?” (Antijulianistica, Beirut 1931, 194f.). To share in Christ’s Resurrection, Mary had first to share in his death. The New Testament provides no information on the circumstances of Mary’s death. This silence leads one to suppose that it happened naturally, with no detail particularly worthy of mention. [My comment – seriously???] If this were not the case, how could the information about it have remained hidden from her contemporaries and not have been passed down to us in some way? [My comment – It’s called selective storytelling or truth telling, his-story and patriarchy, religious/culture ommission.] As to the cause of Mary’s death, the opinions that wish to exclude her from death by natural causes seem groundless. It is more important to look for the Blessed Virgin’s spiritual attitude at the moment of her departure from this world. In this regard, St Francis de Sales maintains that Mary’s death was due to a transport of love. He speaks of a dying “in love, from love and through love”, going so far as to say that the Mother of God died of love for her Son Jesus (Treatise on the Love of God, bk. 7, ch. XIII-XIV). Whatever from the physical point of view was the organic, biological cause of the end of her bodily life, it can be said that for Mary the passage from this life to the next was the full development of grace in glory, so that no death can ever be so fittingly described as a “dormition” as hers.”[15]

Both views agree that she was taken up into heaven bodily. The specific belief of the Orthodox is expressed in their liturgical texts used of the feast of the Dormition.[14]

The Eastern Catholic observance of the feast corresponds to that of their Orthodox counterparts, whether Eastern Orthodox or Oriental Orthodox.

More info about the practises of Dormition and Assumption on the above link and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assumption_of_Mary

So being a pure being, Mary was ressurected like Jesus? Mary in relation to Ishtar/Inanna i.e. Venus (Venus the planet and Venus/Aphrodite) the Morning Star? Ishtar/Inanna are goddesses of a race(s) which isn’t always known for dying but when they do so it’s usually dramatic and can involve resurrection or at least metaphor for death an ressurection e.g. the decent into the underworld/netherworld giving up mortal ‘trappings’ such as sexuality and clothing/graces facing the Dark Mother, seven levels and then ascent. Obviously by the time they became Mary ‘Mother of [a] Christ’ (the earlier and longest lived in history ‘Christ’ in history being Krishna – and the fact that he (avatar of Vishnu), Shiv[a] and Brahm[a] are not the be all and end all nor absolute creators in Hinduism or even pre-Vedic Hinduism, they’re not creators at all and at times of extreme distress usually of their own making call forth and pretend to pay tribute to the Mother of all Lalit[h]a – she is above all of the Hindu Mother Goddesses, she was there first*) came along the sensuality, sexuality, aggressiveness and cleverness of Ishtar/Inanna/Venus/Aphrodite was turned into the perfect innocent (but still typically a rape victim – many goddesses and divine females suffer rape) non-sexual free of ‘sin’ being even though she was married and even though ‘God’ choosing to use her baby to either be or be possessed by another ‘soul’/character (later commonly known as ‘Jesus’).

Either way kudos to her, she had it tough.

 

P.S. Interestingly enough as per the Gregorian calendar August 15 [1947 after WWII] is the anniversary of the Independence of India – the oldest still living Mother Goddess (though twisted/morphed version) culture.

 

*Ancient gods and God herself are written/told to spend much of their time sleeping (‘dormition’/asleep), dreaming and breathing/meditating – the breath of/or brahma i.e. the inwards and outwards motion of breath is the same as the movement of the universe and creation predominantly our galaxy towards and outwards from its centre and the Maya is the illusion/dream/barrier/veil between creation and potential or dreaming and waking, truth and lie. Creation/existence as we know it is seen as a dream perhaps even a daydream or forced dream and part of the or a cycle of breath of God.

I was going to write about this a few weeks ago as a follow-up to the acid attack post HERE but didn’t get round to it and was reminded by an article in Monday’s ‘Evening Standard’:

Evening Standard Acid Attacks

Following the string of terrorist attacks in the UK this year both from Muslims and against Muslims (though many Muslims feel their community is attacked by a small portion/extremists of their faith as well and then they suffer the backlash from non-Muslims) we’ve seen a rise in acid attacks.

Acid thrown towards the face and body of victims is usually towards women and children, a ‘punishment’ for rejection and being disliked similar to ‘honour rapes and killings’. Now those groups have to be careful of both ‘their own’ dishing out revenge and capital punishment as well as ‘outsiders’ taking out their fury of social politics in general against them. Acid attacks have also been noted in gang warfare however they are now being directed towards Muslims and potentially Brown people in general (since unless traditionally dressed it’s hard for many non-versed in religion and culture to tell between someone likely of Muslim origin and a Hindu for example, let alone whether they actually subscribe to religion) i.e. the most targeted out of ‘likely’ Muslims as it’s even harder to tell who is Muslim out of the many Black or White believers/practitioners. So as usual since 9/11 (US Twin Towers, Building No: 7 & alleged Pentagon attack) if you’re Brown or Yellow (non Chinese-subcontinent) you have to be on the lookout for offending someone due to the colour of your skin. Offending them to the point of being marred, injured for life and/or put to death.

An insidious crime already some of the methods of getting ‘a Muslim’ person’s attention before attacking them has been the innocent seeming asking a driver/passenger to roll down their window (and potentially asking the time or for directions) and then throwing acid at them. Remember throwing acid at someone is condemning them to a slow, extremely painful ‘punishment’ because it burns everything; skin, hair, clothing and isn’t easily stopped like a fire that can be put out by water or a fire blanket. The people who touch the initial victim to help them are also put at risk, but what do you do? Stand aside and watch someone burn?

It reminds me of the level of fear and caution raised some years ago when news (some claim it was false) spread that criminals would/could play a recording a baby crying outside women’s homes and when the woman opened to door to see what was happening, she’d be pushed inside and raped/killed as part of a home invasion. It also reminds me of the spread of machete attacks in London this year, one of which I narrowly missed being around for i.e. I’d been hoping to visit The British Museum for Father’s Day but was put off because of the ongoing attacks and then what happened a week before? An attack in Russell Square. Not on the same level of massacre but when the 7/7 attacks happened in London I was 15min late that day and missed all of the tube stations/lines involved, all of which were on my routes to work. I’m not a lucky person at all but it seems there’s someone/thing(s) out there looking out for me sometimes.

Those using acid against Muslims are ignoring the national tragedy and what some have been calling ‘murder’ i.e. long term, systematic, institutionalized process leading to injury, homelessness, loss and death of the poor and many of non-Caucasian origin people at Grenfell Tower. What were they guilty of? Other than being poor? And if some of them were guilty of things like sub-letting – does that mean they deserved what happened to them, what they were put at risk of in ‘building regeneration’ and having their concerns and welfare neglected before that? Is their suffering and demise worthy of attacking Brown people and Muslims in general? No.

This is bloodlust plain and simple and disgusting to anyone with any kind of capacity for sympathy and empathy.

This gallery contains 44 photos.

Every time I visit a town/small city I like to go to the local library, museum and/or masonic hall to learn about the place and the people who live(d) there. It’s especially interesting to know which families survived the ages and are still based there. My most recent visit was to Chelmsford Museum, Essex: It […]

Aboriginal flag

Blaming the fathers of these children means they should blame their own forefathers for being convicts who were ‘rewarded’ with land that wasn’t theirs and then all the migrants/immigrants who were given cheap passage to Australia for business opportunities.

This is an awesome site for press cuttings and archiving.

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com

The post I’m focusing on today is:

https://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2014/11/26/timeline/

The Paedophile Information Exchange: Timeline of press cuttings 1975-2014

18th-25th January 1975: Letters regarding the Albany Trust’s links with PIE (The Times)

26th August 1975: Child-lovers win fight for role in Gay Lib (The Guardian)

26th August 1975: Legalise child sex – call (Sheffield Morning Telegraph)

28th August-15th September 1975: Guardian ‘London Letter’ column on PIE and related correspondence (The Guardian)

November 1975: ‘Evidence on the law relating to and penalties for certain sexual offences involving children – For The Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee’ aka ‘The PIE manifesto’

22nd January 1976: Who really wants a change in the age of consent? (The Times)

Spring 1976: ‘Paedophile Politics’ (Gay Left)

19th May 1977: Adults only (The Guardian)

4th February 1977: Blackmail after man applied to join paedophile organization (The Times)

24th August 1977: Mirror comment – For adults only (Daily Mirror)

27th August 1977: Conference ban puts paedophile group further into cold (The Guardian)

28th August 1977: Dutch MP backs child sex (The Guardian)

30th August 1977: Paedophile talks backed by homosexuals (The Times)

1st September 1977: Paedophile conference plans ‘age of consent’ meeting (The Guardian)

4th September 1977: Britain ‘intolerant’ on child sex (The Observer)

9th September 1977: Priest’s child sex views repudiated (The Guardian)

20th September 1977: Fury of the mothers (Daily Mirror)

24th September 1977: Gays join PIE fight (The Guardian)

16th December 1977: Row over cash for paedophiles (Daily Mirror)

16th December 1977: Grants ‘help child sex group’ (The Guardian)

20th December 1977: Guardian praised despite erring (The Guardian)

25th January 1978: Musician jailed on charges over pornography (Daily Mail)

1st April 1978: Judge slams child sex ring (Daily Express)

1st April 1978: ‘Sinister’ sex group rapped (Daily Mirror)

11th June 1978: They just don’t give a damn (News of the World)

18th June 1978: Child sex leaders raided (Sunday Express)

25th June 1978: Why a school sacked the nastiest man in Britain (News of the World)

11th July 1978: Dishonoured: the shame of a viscount’s son who turned from porn books to child sex (Daily Express)

7th November 1978: Reporter held (Daily Mail)

24th June 1979: Poisonous PIEmen are at it again (News of the World)

18th November 1979: We trapped little boy’s evil friend (News of the World)

November 1980: The Beast of Berlin (Private Eye)

21st January 1981: Child sex group ‘is a force for evil’ (Daily Mail)

25th January 1981: Police swooped over our story on the PIE men (News of the World)

27th January 1981: Paedophile book earns lecturer’s praise (The Guardian)

February 1981: The Beast of Berlin (2) (Private Eye)

1st February 1981: PIE men retrial (Daily Mirror)

1st March 1981: PIE men face sex charge (News of the World)

7th March 1981: ‘Child porn exchanged’ (The Guardian)

14th March 1981: Why the DPP resurrected an ancient law to deal with paedophiles (The Guardian)

15th March 1981: Whitelaw quiz on envoy’s links with the child sex men (News of the World)

16th March 1981: Why we did not prosecute (Daily Mail)

16th March 1981: ‘Don’t name porn envoy’ (The New Standard)

16th March 1981: Tory MP threatens to name ex-diplomat mentioned in sex trial (The Times)

17th March 1981: Child-sex diary of a diplomat (Daily Mail)

17th March 1981: MP determined to name diplomat over child pornography case (The Guardian)

17th March 1981: MP is defiant over naming diplomat (The Times)

17th March 1981: Paedophile case diplomat would have faced purge (The Times)

18th March 1981: MP names man in child sex case (Daily Mail)

18th March 1981: I will name the porn case envoy today (Daily Express)

18th March 1981: MP defies porn case plea (Daily Mirror)

18th March 1981: Shame of the ‘porn’ envoy (The New Standard)

18th March 1981: Diplomat referred to in sex trial named today (The Times)

19th March 1981: I will name more names (Daily Express)

19th March 1981: MP in porn name storm (Daily Mail)

19th March 1981: Rap for MP who named envoy (Daily Mirror)

19th March 1981: Secret shame of Mr Perfect (Daily Mirror)

19th March 1981: ‘Porn’ envoy: Havers replies (The New Standard)

19th March 1981: MP’s questions anger Hayman solicitor (The Times)

19th March 1981: Mr Steel says naming diplomat may be abuse of privilege (The Times)

20th March 1981: How Sir Peter was kept out of the PIE trial (The Guardian)

20th March 1981: Havers defends non-prosecution (The Guardian)

20th March 1981: Text of MP’s questions on envoy and replies by Ministers (The Guardian)

20th March 1981: Law chief tells of ‘an obsession with child-torture’ (The Sun)

20th March 1981: My flat’s been bugged, he says (The Sun)

20th March 1981: Sir Peter ‘not in blackmail plot’ (The Sun)

20th March 1981: Attorney General’s full answer to question on Sir Peter Hayman (The Times)

20th March 1981: Ex-diplomat was not blackmailed or pressurized, solicitor says (The Times)

20th March 1981: Sir Peter and Mr Henderson (The Times)

21st March 1981: The double life of Sir Peter Hayman (The Times)

22nd March 1981: Child sex ring goes back into business (News of the World)

22nd March 1981: Filth behind a box number (News of the World)

22nd March 1981: This dreadful web of child corruption (News of the World)

22nd March 1981: Conspiracy, morals and lynch law (The Observer)

22nd March 1981: John Junor – Current Events (Sunday Express)

22nd March 1981: How PIE gets a cut of public money (Sunday People)

22nd March 1981: Scandalous: The cover-up in high places (Sunday People)

22nd March 1981: Top people escape child porn scandal (Sunday People)

23rd March 1981: Child sex sect gets new boss (Daily Mirror)

24th March 1981: MP ‘ready for gaol’ to protect source (The Guardian)

24th March 1981: Hayman MP defiant over source (The Times)

25th March 1981: Paedophile ban call (The Guardian)

26th March 1981: The questions unanswered in the Hayman case (The Times)

29th March 1981: MP’s fury at child porn for patients (News of the World)

7th April 1981: Havers denies special treatment for Hayman (The Guardian)

7th April 1981: Why Sir Peter Hayman was not named (The Times)

9th April: Letter regarding mental health charity MIND’s links with PIE (The Times)

20th April 1981: Village split as Sir Peter returns (Sunday Express)

25th July 1981: Teacher’s sex case ‘tragedy’ (Daily Mail)

25th July 1981: Teacher convicted of sex offences ‘can still teach’ (The Guardian)

20th September 1981: Classroom corrupters (News of the World)

20th December 1981: Vice link-up of the child sex beasts (News of the World)

20th March 1982: Clifford Hindley retires (Community Care)

18th July 1982: Police killer in sex spy probe (News of the World)

21st July 1982: Computer men to probe spy ‘leak’ (Daily Mail)

21st July 1982: Thatcher’s guarded security statement (The Times)

23rd July 1982: Tom O’Carroll released after 16 months in jail (Capital Gay)

15th August 1982: Child-sex boss in Whitehall shock (News of the World)

21st August 1982: Child sex spy tells all (Daily Star)

21st August 1982: Secrets of the PIE men (Daily Star)

23rd August 1982: Ban the PIE men (Daily Star)

3rd September 1982: College principal tells how he spied on PIE (The Guardian)

24th September 1982: Letter – A lust too gross to allow (The Guardian)

12th November 1982: Prime had links with child sex group (Daily Mail)

16th November 1982: MPs continue to press for debate on Prime affair (The Guardian)

27th November 1982: Another mystery death (Daily Express)

16th December 1982: MPs foiled on Prime debate (Daily Mail)

1982: PIE member Geoffrey Prime complains to the Press Council about the News of the World’s allegations (Press Council)

1982/1983: Sir Michael Havers complains to the Press Council about the Sun’s Geoffrey Prime allegations (Press Council)

1983: Interview with Steven Smith and Peter Bremner (BBC)

9th January 1983: Scare over sex-club spy (News of the World)

16th January 1983: Five get a rocket over Prime spy files (News of the World)

6th February 1983: PIE men are slammed (News of the World)

27th February 1983: Evil menace to children (Sunday People)

19th June 1983: Twisted lusts of TV stars (News of the World)

22nd June 1983: Scoutmaster quits (Daily Mail)

24th June 1983: Church man in sex row (Daily Mirror)

20th August 1983: Outlaw evil child-sex peddlers (Daily Mail)

22nd August 1983: God help our little children (Daily Express)

22nd August 1983: The Sun and Sir Michael (The Sun)

22nd August 1983: The Sun has to withdraw its allegations about Geoffrey Prime (The Times)

23rd August 1983: Child sex: MP ready to expose famous names (Daily Express)

23rd August 1983: ‘Ban PIE’ call (Daily Telegraph)

23rd August 1983: Dickens’ threat to reveal names (Huddersfield Daily Examiner)

23rd August 1983: Ban child sex cult urges angry MP (The Sun)

23rd August 1983: MP seeks to ban child sex group (The Times)

24th August 1983: Child sex: Yard set to hand over names (Daily Express)

24th August 1983: Sex with children: DPP gets names (Daily Mail)

24th August 1983: No stopping men of evil (Daily Star)

24th August 1983: Why evil group won’t be banned (Daily Star)

24th August 1983: ‘Why the Yard acted on PIE’ (The Standard)

24th August 1983: Telephone caller says he knows one of the men who assaulted boy (The Times)

25th August 1983: Eight top names on my list of shame (Daily Express)

25th August 1983: Sir Peter is unscathed by scandal (Daily Express)

25th August 1983: 15 men named in child sex report (Daily Mail)

25th August 1983: Peril of a child sex club ban (Daily Mirror)

25th August 1983: Brittan wants paedophile report (Daily Telegraph)

25th August 1983: Public figures named in files on sex offenders in Britain (The Globe and Mail, Canada)

25th August 1983: Scotland Yard sends two new reports on PIE to ministers (The Guardian)

25th August 1983: Confessions of the ‘child sex’ men (The Standard)

26th August 1983: The shocking truth about PIE (Daily Express)

26th August 1983: The men who want to make sex with children legal (Daily Mail)

26th August 1983: Yard sends child sex file to DPP (Daily Mirror)

26th August 1983: Kinky child cult wins new recruits (The Sun)

26th August 1983: You scum! (The Sun)

27th August 1983: Ministry in child sex link (Daily Star)

28th August 1983: The nasty nine (News of the World)

28th August 1983: They even snare kids of four (News of the World)

28th August 1983: Child sex and a VIP (Sunday Mirror)

28th August 1983: ‘Curb child sex’ bid (Sunday Mirror)

28th August 1983: Top people shield the child sex VIPs (Sunday People)

28th August 1983: What we exposed and they ignored (Sunday People)

29th August 1983: Law boss pledges war on child sex (Daily Star)

29th August 1983: PIE has right to speak, say gays (The Guardian)

30th August 1983: Public anger after attack on 6-year-old boy – Child-sex group’s leaders step out of the shadows (The Canberra Times)

30th August 1983: MPs named in child sex smear bid (Daily Mail)

30th August 1983: Envoys in child sex quiz (Daily Star)

31st August 1983: Brittan studies child-sex report (Daily Express)

31st August 1983: Child sex report studied (Daily Telegraph)

31st August 1983: Government ‘apathy’ on PIE criticized (The Times)

1st September 1983: The men of evil (Daily Star)

2nd September 1983: Child sex fiends face new purge – but Brittan goes one step at a time (Daily Express)

2nd September 1983: A whimper from Brittan (Daily Express)

2nd September 1983: Child abuse: Brittan orders police review (Daily Mail)

2nd September 1983: PIE’s views defended (Daily Mail)

2nd September 1983: Brittan is ready to tame the perverts (Daily Star)

2nd September 1983: PIE links with rights group (Daily Star)

2nd September 1983: Brittan seeks expertise on child assault cases (The Guardian)

2nd September 1983: Minister condemns paedophile views (The Times)

3rd September 1983: MPs on ‘child sex mailing list’ (Daily Express)

4th September 1983: PIE account closed (The Observer)

5th September 1983: Child-sex purge ‘scares top men’ (Daily Express)

9th September 1983: Child sex men charged (Daily Mirror)

10th September 1983: ‘Bastards’ fury at a child sex court case (Daily Mirror)

10th September 1983: 3 charged with sex offences (The Guardian)

30th September 1983: CHE steps up support for PIE (Capital Gay)

3rd November 1983: Police guarding home of Tory MP (The Guardian)

4th November 1983: Stalls are down on PIE (Islington Gazette)

24th November 1983: MP alleges paedophilia at palace (The Times)

25th November 1983: Two year cover-up on dirty pictures (Daily Express)

25th November 1983: Palace link in child sex scandal (Daily Express)

25th November 1983: Vice ring at the palace, says MP (Daily Mail)

2nd December 1983: Sex crusade Tory MP’s office raided (Daily Mail)

9th December 1983: Home Office orders police visit (Capital Gay)

16th December 1983: PIE-probe police visit another activist (Capital Gay)

15th January 1984: Row over Palace vice ‘cover-up’ (News of the World)

19th January 1984: MP hands over shock report on child sex (Daily Mirror)

19th January: Dickens’ Dossier (Huddersfield Daily Examiner)

20th January 1984: TV chief is named in child sex probe (Daily Express)

25th March 1984: Evil secret of a Scots address (Sunday Mail)

15th June 1984: ‘Child sex link’ man sues for £20,000 (Capital Gay)

28th June 1984: Resistance at top – MP (The Guardian)

28th June 1984: Bill to curb sexual abuse of children (The Times)

24th August 1984: Two years’ jail for paedophile (The Times)

16th September 1984: Child sex trial man flees (The People)

18th September 1984: Catch the PIE man! (Daily Star)

17th October 1984: PIE man: legal move (The Guardian)

19th October 1984: Paedophile group disbands (Capital Gay)

19th October 1984: PIE extradition (The Times)

November 1984: Guilty men who back child sex (Daily Star)

7th November 1984: Master spy head ‘traps men in child sex group (Daily Express)

7th November 1984: Child sex ring’s ‘Home Office link’ (Evening Standard)

7th November 1984: Leader of child sex group misses trial (The Guardian)

8th November 1984: Home Office phone link alleged in child sex case (The Guardian)

14th November 1984: Paedophile leaders cleared of child sex offence incitement (The Guardian)

14th November 1984: Fury over verdicts on child sex trio (Daily Express)

14th November 1984: Child sex boss escapes trial (Daily Mirror)

14th November 1984: Paedophile chiefs are cleared of main charges (Daily Telegraph)

14th November 1984: Jail fear of child sex men (Evening Standard)

14th November 1984: Child-sex pair cleared as MP slams law (The Sun)

15th November 1984: All-male jury is rapped (Daily Express)

15th November 1984: Child-sex men fear jail revenge (Daily Express)

15th November 1984: Child sex men face jail fury (Daily Mirror)

15th November 1984: ‘Tough time’ ahead in jail for paedophile chiefs (Daily Telegraph)

15th November 1984: Leaders of paedophile group are sent to jail (The Times)

17th November 1984: PIE man on child porn charges (The Guardian)

19th November 1984: Child sex group ‘has folded’ (The Guardian)

25th November 1984: Dutch delay decision on Briton’s extradition (Daily Telegraph)

28th November 1984: PIE extradition ruling delayed by Dutch (The Times)

5th December 1984: Alan Rusbridger’s diary (The Guardian)

January 1985: Extradition move on child sex man dropped (Daily Telegraph)

7th July 1985: Evil PIE boss in a child care scandal (News of the World)

29th December 1987: Porn group tries to link up with child charity (The Sunday Times)

25th January 1990: Two face child porn charges (Islington Gazette)

1st August 1990: ‘Snuff’ video outrage…but nothing stops the monsters (Daily Star)

16th December 1991: Child porn man who fled is jailed seven years later (Evening Standard)

17th December 1991: Pervert jailed (Daily Mirror)

23rd April 1992: ‘Wicked’ doctor took dirty pictures of young boys (Islington Gazette)

17th September 1992: Child care expert fined over photos of naked boys (The Independent)

6th May 1993: Country house hideaway of disgraced care chief (Evening Standard)

21st February 1994: Parents call for public inquiry over sex abuse skipper (Press Association)

24th February 1994: An abuse of trust (Daily Mail)

3rd March 1994: Social work team claims to have found nationwide paedophile ring (Care Weekly)

27th May 1994: Silence that cloaked child sex conspiracy (Evening Standard)

1st June 1994: Shadow of the attic (The Guardian)

9th September 1994: Police arrest child care chief (Daily Mail)

10th November 1994: Lecturer held (The Independent)

9th March 1997: These men are the child sex abusers (The Observer)

6th July 1997: Paedophile list set up by gay rights leader (The Sunday Times)

2nd June 1998: The epidemic in our midst that went unnoticed (The Guardian)

8th October 2000: Home truths (The Independent on Sunday)

28th October 2000: The web of pure evil (Daily Mail)

9th September 2001: Inquiry into researcher’s links with paedophiles (Mail on Sunday)

10th September 2001: University investigates PhD student’s internet links with paedophiles (The Scotsman)

15th September 2002: Scandal of pervert on top legal panel (Sunday Express)

10th February 2003: Under cover in suburbia, the master spy living off the state he betrayed (Daily Mail)

17th March 2004: The police child porn expert…exposed as a paedophile (Daily Mirror)

17th March 2004: Child porn ‘expert’ jailed for abusing young girls (The Guardian)

21st December 2006: The porn vault (Daily Mirror)

17th August 2007: ‘I hate him for what he did to my girl. He’s evil’ (Leicester Mercury)

2010/2011: Annual report (Campaign for Homosexual Equality)

19th April 2013: Tom Watson’s letter to Theresa May

25th March 2014: Teachers ‘abused boys at Osborne’s old school’ + second article + third article (The Times)

28th March 2014: Boys punished for telling of abuse by teacher (The Times)