Men on 1970s pro-paedophile list could still work with children today

[Idris2002]

Including me He used to pop round for meals , educationals at this IMG squat down at the end of the road .It was on the old EMI factory estate and there were about 5 or 6 squats including the one we had which later ended up as part of a housing association. He was quite chatty and tbf didn't bother pursuing the differences with me over me being IS/SWP influenced. Ken McCloud the future SF writer was in the squat I lived in , although it turned out that he was an entrist in the Migs from another Trot group or something like that.

Funny, he doesn't mention you.

"It's complicated" - I'd like to read your memoirs some day.

 

[The39thStep]

The moral of that particular story, and of many others, is that you should never, ever go to Dubai.

It has no bearing on anything being discussed on this thread.

but they do have strong economic and political links with the UK though.

 

[PursuedByBears]

I think the German greens also had some confused policy and there was if course the infamous Kentler programme which placed children in the foster care of known paedophiles.

I've just googled that, really shocking

 

[lazythursday]

I think there is a serious point that we are judging people on this mailing list by today's attitudes / understandings and it really may not be the case that all of these men are paedophiles. Firstly, the fact that effects / extent / nature of child abuse wasn't understood in the same way. I can see how in the 70s, in that environment of questioning many sexual mores, arguments about the right age of consent and how they have been much lower in different historical cultures may have played out quite differently and could have been quite persuasive to some people. Secondly the unequal age of consent and the prosecution of relationships we would now consider acceptable muddies the waters.

That's not to say that there might well be some dangerous predators on this list who have never been brought to justice .

 

[Wilf]

Let me point out that I think what happened to the convicted man is awful and almost certainly the result of racism by the survivor’s mother and the Dubai authorities. And also that I find the activities of the PIE activists abhorrent.

I'd abandoned this discussion but just saw that in the above you describe the young woman in the Dubai case as a 'survivor'. Would you care to explain?

 

[Wilf]

I think there is a serious point that we are judging people on this mailing list by today's attitudes / understandings and it really may not be the case that all of these men are paedophiles. Firstly, the fact that effects / extent / nature of child abuse wasn't understood in the same way. I can see how in the 70s, in that environment of questioning many sexual mores, arguments about the right age of consent and how they have been much lower in different historical cultures may have played out quite differently and could have been quite persuasive to some people. Secondly the unequal age of consent and the prosecution of relationships we would now consider acceptable muddies the waters.

That's not to say that there might well be some dangerous predators on this list who have never been brought to justice .

From the link in the OP:

They found records or further information for 45% of the people on the list - with a reasonable degree of certainty - and discovered that half of them had been convicted or cautioned (or had been charged and died before trial) for sexual offences against children. Charges included distributing abuse images, kidnap and rape.

So, of the people they identified, half of them were convicted/cautioned of offences against children. Plus, the figure actually committing offences must have been considerably higher. Quite possible that these figures were skewed, in that they managed to find people who went through the courts more easily than those who didn't. But however you read it, this was a group of men with a very high rate of offending against children.

 

[Wilf]

And on the 'times were different' point, well, yes they were in many respects and will be in another 40 years. However the abuse of children was both illegal and seen as abhorrent in the 70s and 80s just as it is today.

 

[lazythursday]

And on the 'times were different' point, well, yes they were in many respects and will be in another 40 years. However the abuse of children was both illegal and seen as abhorrent in the 70s and 80s just as it is today.

Yes. But you do have to think about how the arguments of this group will have been presented. I haven't read any PIE material but I suspect it was couched more in the language of children and young people's sexual rights / liberation rather than the rights of adults to abuse. I guess I can remember a hangover from some of this language in the late 80s / early 90s in age of consent campaigns - certainly the idea that there was an argument for a lower age of consent wasn't a complete anathema then (famously Peter Tatchell argued for one) and I can remember a gay rights activist from an older generation than me making these kinds of arguments about youth sexual rights. In a context where 16-21 year olds were denied their rights it didn't seem like a charter for abuse.

 

[Wilf]

Yes. But you do have to think about how the arguments of this group will have been presented. I haven't read any PIE material but I suspect it was couched more in the language of children and young people's sexual rights / liberation rather than the rights of adults to abuse. I guess I can remember a hangover from some of this language in the late 80s / early 90s in age of consent campaigns - certainly the idea that there was an argument for a lower age of consent wasn't a complete anathema then (famously Peter Tatchell argued for one) and I can remember a gay rights activist from an older generation than me making these kinds of arguments about youth sexual rights. In a context where 16-21 year olds were denied their rights it didn't seem like a charter for abuse.

Well, I think that linkage with the unequal age of gay consent was a convenient language that they located their own stuff in. It was a linkage that plenty of people on the left fell for and should have known better. And ultimately, a significant percentage of the men on that list were active child abusers.

 

[A380]

I'd abandoned this discussion but just saw that in the above you describe the young woman in the Dubai case as a 'survivor'. Would you care to explain?

Because I don’t like to use the term ‘victim’ when talking about sexual offending . Would you care to explain why you don’t’ like the term survivor.

 

[Aaronf]

I'd say whatever percentage didn't have anything against them probably just hadn't been caught. What agenda can they possibly have when bleating about their rights and rights to abuse children other than that itself?

Im guessing there's a very small chance that people in history who have identified as paedophiles have refrained from carrying it out but to join groups in the hope of it being accepted and push for their 'rights'? Just all wrong and sick.

 

[Wilf]

Because I don’t like to use the term ‘victim’ when talking about sexual violence. Would you care to explain why you don’t’ like the term survivor.

Curiouser and curiouser... so, do you believer the young woman in the Dubai case suffered 'sexual violence'? That's what you appear to be saying.

Edit: and on the second bit, no I have no objection to the term survivor, of course. I just don't see any sexual violence in that case. Who knows, there may have been but it certainly wasn't in the story as reported.

 

[lazythursday]

Well, I think that linkage with the unequal age of gay consent was a convenient language that they located their own stuff in. It was a linkage that plenty of people on the left fell for and should have known better. And ultimately, a significant percentage of the men on that list were active child abusers.

Yes absolutely. I'm sure the majority of people on the list were/are paedophiles (whether practising or not) but I can also see how some people may have fallen for arguments that were very much of their time.

 

[TopCat]

Because I don’t like to use the term ‘victim’ when talking about sexual offending . Would you care to explain why you don’t’ like the term survivor.

When a kid is raped there is a clear victim. Sometimes they survive. Often they can’t handle what happened and self destruct.

 

[existentialist]

I'd say whatever percentage didn't have anything against them probably just hadn't been caught. What agenda can they possibly have when bleating about their rights and rights to abuse children other than that itself?

Im guessing there's a very small chance that people in history who have identified as paedophiles have refrained from carrying it out but to join groups in the hope of it being accepted and push for their 'rights'? Just all wrong and sick.

There are treatment programmes for people with paedophilia. But (and this is a few years ago, but I can't imagine it's improved) they were only available as part of an offender rehabilitation programme, and places were very limited. So, essentially, if someone recognised symptoms of paedophilia in themselves, there was effectively no proactive treatment available until they had committed an offence, and probably not even then.

In Canada, they have a scheme that has run for many years and is successful at reducing reoffending rates - CoSA Canada - but I note that, too, is aimed at convicted offenders - in all areas of sexual violence.

I'm sure that if there were a route for people who recognise in themselves the urges that they fear will lead them to do harm, there should be a way for them to access treatment. After all, a boundary is always easier to recross once we've crossed it once. And the savings - the incalculable cost to those affected by these offences, not to mention the cost of imprisoning and supervising after release recidivist offenders who end up spending a lot of their lives in the criminal justice system, that's hard cash being saved right there.

 

[Sweet FA]

I'm hoping that the grooming gangs discourse will lead to more educating children about how to look out for potential grooming, how to say no, who to talk to etc. I doubt it will though.

Someone always says this in discussions like it's not explicitly taught in schools. You think we don't do exactly what you outline above?

From the NC:

Pupils should know:

• what sorts of boundaries are appropriate in friendships with peers and others (including in a digital context)
• about the concept of privacy and the implications of it for both children and adults; including that it is not always right to keep secrets if they relate to being safe
• that each person’s body belongs to them, and the differences between appropriate and inappropriate or unsafe physical, and other, contact
• how to respond safely and appropriately to adults they may encounter (in all contexts, including online) whom they do not know
• how to recognise and report feelings of being unsafe or feeling bad about any adult
• how to ask for advice or help for themselves or others, and to keep trying until they are heard,
• how to report concerns or abuse, and the vocabulary and confidence needed to do so
• where to get advice, for example family, school or other sources

Relationships education (Primary)

www.gov.uk

There are treatment programmes for people with paedophilia. But (and this is a few years ago, but I can't imagine it's improved) they were only available as part of an offender rehabilitation programme, and places were very limited. So, essentially, if someone recognised symptoms of paedophilia in themselves, there was effectively no proactive treatment available until they had committed an offence, and probably not even then.

In Canada, they have a scheme that has run for many years and is successful at reducing reoffending rates - CoSA Canada - but I note that, too, is aimed at convicted offenders - in all areas of sexual violence.

I'm sure that if there were a route for people who recognise in themselves the urges that they fear will lead them to do harm, there should be a way for them to access treatment. After all, a boundary is always easier to recross once we've crossed it once. And the savings - the incalculable cost to those affected by these offences, not to mention the cost of imprisoning and supervising after release recidivist offenders who end up spending a lot of their lives in the criminal justice system, that's hard cash being saved right there.

Have you seen I, Pedophile? A tricky watch but it addresses (supposedly) "men who openly acknowledge that they experience sexual attractions to children, but state that they have never molested one"

I, Pedophile - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[A380]

Another thread composed almost entirely of men pontificating on male sexual offending. I’m out.

 

[Lotte]

I'm a woman.

Btw Sweet FA I hope you didn't think I was having a go at teachers - I know how hard your jobs are and how little support you get from anyone. I'm just frustrated because I honestly don't know how to stop something like Rotherham happening again and I know some people, like Jenprick, will say 'deport all the Pakistanis', but that's not going to work.

 

[Elpenor]

Plenty more revelations to come out from the world of celebrity and the establishment, perhaps after they die as some of them are litigious

Plus the national treasure who let it happen on his watch turning a blind eye when in charge of a huge institution. He must be very nearly dead so maybe in a few years time