The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.

[Casually Red]

I dunno if anyone else has seen this news on the allegations left wing politicians and groups advocated for, and ensured government grants were allocated to a pro nonce propaganda outfit by the name of PIE. Seems quite hard to believe, but it looks like its true. Obviously the Daily Mail article is a hatchetjob and an opportunity to stick the boot into the lefties. But at the same time it looks like the core of its allegations are essentially correct.

Basically that a collective decision was taken back in the 70s by various feminist and gay rights campaigners on the left ensconced within the NCCL to equate the struggle for gay rights with the campaign by predatory kiddy fiddlers to get the law off their backs. That they gave the PIE affiliate status with the NCCL and came up with an intellectualisng context for kiddy fiddlers that fitted the left wing liberal moral discourse at the time ,that bascially legitimised their sexual molestation of children and compared it to homosexuality . Arguing that it wasnt unnatural in the slightest and society was just prejudiced against these people. And this official campaigning for the rights of this particular oppressed minority may even have ended up with the government funding their kiddyfiddler magazine by the name of The Magpie.

sorry for linking to this Tory rag but these are pretty serious allegations.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...o-admit-backing-paedophilia-huge-mistake.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

It looks like theyve got Harriet Harman in particular in a corner over this one. Theyre claiming she even opposed the decision to prosecute the cheif kiddy fiddler and called it state repression.


also that looks like a pretty mad letter in the NCCLs magazine from the early 80s. Bonkers stuff. There actually was a proper loony left afterall . No wonder Thatcher kept getting elected.

 

[butchersapron]

Long running discussion on this thread.

 

[andysays]

None of this is news.

The only question is why the Mail have chosen to go with this now. I suppose they reckon that that some people will be suckered into thinking that it is news and that it is relevant. Apparently they were right...

 

[butchersapron]

None of this is news.

The only question is why the Mail have chosen to go with this now. I suppose they reckon that that some people will be suckered into thinking that it is news and that it is relevant. Apparently they were right...

They went with it in December last year, some new info has come to light this week apparently, hence the rehash of their original article (that's the second one linkd gto in the OP). As you say, not a fresh news story by any distance - they'll all tough it out via keeping their mouths pretty much shut.

 

[Casually Red]

well they went with it before, butit looks like they have uncovered additional information. In particular relating to the senior civil servant who signed off on the funds and a leading member of the paedophile group that also worked in his building .

And if todays politicians are refusing to apologise for their role in this then it certainly is news.

 

[andysays]

The story itself has been around far longer than that, though maybe this "ex-Yard chief" jumping in dates from then.

TBH, I personally am not interested enough to read more than the one DM story I've already subjected myself to to find out.

 

[Casually Red]

your posting on a subject thats not news and your disinterested in. Interesting.

 

[nino_savatte]

Zelo Street has an interesting take on this.

This may seem a perfectly sensible way for Dacre to exercise his prerogative of power without responsibility, but he is skating on perilously thin ice, especially when his obedient hackery is so willing the throw the name of Jimmy Savile into the mix. Savile was close to a number of politicians – but not Labour ones. He was a perennial favourite of Margaret Thatcher.
What does not seem to have occurred to Dacre is that playing the paedophile card, especially when considering the kinds of behaviour folks got up to in the 1970s and 80s, is likely to impact on politicians across the political spectrum. Moreover, as SubScribe has observed, it is strange to see a paper so opposed to recent prosecutions for historic child sex abuse apparently wanting more of them.
The case made against its targets by the Mail – SubScribe again – is that “Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt had all worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) in the 1970s at a time when the Paedophile Information Exchange was an affiliate organisation”. But, in Shami Chakrabarti’s words, it had “infiltrated” the NCCL.
Moreover, once the behaviour of the PIE became obvious, the NCCL threw it out. The Mail asserts that its targets “backed” PIE, but they have no evidence to back up the claim. Nor does it help their case to wheel out former DS Mike Hames, whose claim “Through their political correctness, the NCCL legitimised the Paedophile Information Exchange and its vile members” sounds like the Mail wrote it for him.
http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/paedophile-smear-not-good-idea.html

We should also remember that the Tories (and the Right generally) aren't fond of Liberty (NCCL's successors) either.

The SubScribe article.
http://www.sub-scribe.co.uk/harman-hewitt-and-the-paedophiles.html#.UweFIc4TcVD

 

[Sirena]

This is all very old news. In the early-mid 70s, the PIE made the rounds of gender conferences. I was at one in Leeds where they made a presentation.

 

[tim]

We should also remember that the Tories (and the Right generally) aren't fond of Liberty (NCCL's successors) either.

The SubScribe article.
http://www.sub-scribe.co.uk/harman-hewitt-and-the-paedophiles.html#.UweFIc4TcVD

Shami and David Davis seemed to be well into mutual appreciation a few years back.

 

[Casually Red]

Zelo Street has an interesting take on this.


We should also remember that the Tories (and the Right generally) aren't fond of Liberty (NCCL's successors) either.

The SubScribe article.
http://www.sub-scribe.co.uk/harman-hewitt-and-the-paedophiles.html#.UweFIc4TcVD

well they make a few interesting points, as well as a few shit ones tbh . For example they try to exonerate the NCCL by claiming

Moreover, once the behaviour of the PIE became obvious, the NCCL threw it out.

nor did the organisation find much public sympathy at the time. The NCCL excluded it soon after publication of that quarterly magazine at the end of 1982

Plainly they did sympathise with them right up until the point the public got so outraged about their court cases in the media that further support for them was untenable. They were affording them a public platform and forum to complain about the discrimination the state practiced against them and the nasty names people referred to them by and to openly equate themselves with other minorities, such as gays and blacks . And they were doing it for years.

And the notion that there was any doubt as to the behaviour of a group of men openly identifying themselves as an organised network of paedophiles is utterly ridiculous . Defending the NCCL on the grounds that it had been infiltrated by a group of men openly calling themselves Paedophile Action for Liberation and Paedophile Information Exchange...jesus christ on a bike.

What seems to be going on here is an inability either for the politicians in question or those defending them in the public domain to take on board a serious wrong was committed. And people need to hold their hands up, be accountable and at the very least explain themselves and apologise. Pointing to the Daily Mails obvious bias as an excuse for people not to have to do that is absurd. This is seriously embarassing . Those people should actually be embarassed.

And is it not slightly odd that, instead of trying to chase down the high-powered child-abusing visitors to the Elm Guest house, it should choose to pursue three people who as twentysomethings thought they were doing the right thing in promoting free speech for all?

If we didn't know better, it might be interpreted as a witch-hunt.

 

[Casually Red]

This is all very old news. In the early-mid 70s, the PIE made the rounds of gender conferences. I was at one in Leeds where they made a presentation.

did many people clap at the end of it ?

 

[Sirena]

If I remember correctly, the PIE platform in the mid 70s was more about reducing the age of consent than anything.

In a political time when all areas of sex and gender restriction were being explored, by the women's movement and by GLF and CHE, it did not seem inappropriate to explore all aspects of sexuality. The NCCL was at the forefront of gender politics and so, at the time, it might have appeared that this was something needing support.

 

[elbows]

Basically that a collective decision was taken back in the 70s by various feminist and gay rights campaigners on the left ensconced within the NCCL to equate the struggle for gay rights with the campaign by predatory kiddy fiddlers to get the law off their backs. That they gave the PIE affiliate status with the NCCL and came up with an intellectualisng context for kiddy fiddlers that fitted the left wing liberal moral discourse at the time ,that bascially legitimised their sexual molestation of children and compared it to homosexuality . Arguing that it wasnt unnatural in the slightest and society was just prejudiced against these people. And this official campaigning for the rights of this particular oppressed minority may even have ended up with the government funding their kiddyfiddler magazine by the name of The Magpie.

also that looks like a pretty mad letter in the NCCLs magazine from the early 80s. Bonkers stuff. There actually was a proper loony left afterall . No wonder Thatcher kept getting elected.

All the more reason to be glad that society and the law moved away from oppressing all sorts of minorities. For example increasing equality for same-sex relationships, marriage and, age of consent etc erodes all manner of dodgy conflations between homosexuality and paedophilia. Including the ones that led to the intellectual arguments made back then, thwarting such attempts to piggyback onto a wider cause.

 

[andysays]

your posting on a subject thats not news and your disinterested in. Interesting.

As I said before, the only bit that interests me is why the Mail have chosen to go with this now, and why you've been suckered into repeating their story and furthering their agenda, and even then it doesn't interest me that much because it the sort of shit I'd expect from them and the sort of stupidity I'd expect from you.

...There actually was a proper loony left afterall...

 

[Casually Red]

If I remember correctly, the PIE platform in the mid 70s was more about reducing the age of consent than anything.

In a political time when all areas of sex and gender restriction were being explored, by the women's movement and by GLF and CHE, it did not seem inappropriate to explore all aspects of sexuality. The NCCL was at the forefront of gender politics and so, at the time, it might have appeared that this was something needing support.

to a complete fucking idiot, certainly .

at the time

they were still idiots, even back then .

 

[Casually Red]

the sort of stupidity I'd expect from you.

Actual stupidity involves campaigning for the rights of kiddy fiddlers , not taking the view a politicians should at the very least apologise for an unacceptable political position .

 

[ViolentPanda]

Long running discussion on this thread.

Yup, usual Mail shit-stirring.
It's salutary that in 30+ years of the right hammering at Harman and Hewitt (and to a lesser extent, Dromey) about this, a decent punch has never been landed. That's not down to a conspiracy between paedos and "the left", either, it's down to the fact that while you can "read" the extant evidence to IMPLY certain things, there's bollocks-all actual proof that'd convict them of anything but liberal gullibility.

 

[ViolentPanda]

well they went with it before, butit looks like they have uncovered additional information. In particular relating to the senior civil servant who signed off on the funds and a leading member of the paedophile group that also worked in his building .

And if todays politicians are refusing to apologise for their role in this then it certainly is news.

There's the rub, though. Would you/the Mail be demanding an apology if Harman, Hewitt or Dromey had gone on to be country solicitors or teachers?
I doubt it. I doubt any attention would be paid to it at all.

 

[Casually Red]

There's the rub, though. Would you/the Mail be demanding an apology if Harman, Hewitt or Dromey had gone on to be country solicitors or teachers?
I doubt it. I doubt any attention would be paid to it at all.

that sounds like you taking the alternative view they shouldnt apologise, because theyre well known politicians.

 

[ViolentPanda]

This is all very old news. In the early-mid 70s, the PIE made the rounds of gender conferences. I was at one in Leeds where they made a presentation.

Not just gender conferences, political ones too. The Tory-loving Mail is conveniently forgetting that there were a few Conservative MPs who were privately-supportive of PIE too.

 

[tim]

This is all very old news. In the early-mid 70s, the PIE made the rounds of gender conferences. I was at one in Leeds where they made a presentation.

What was the general reaction to the presentation?

I can certainly remember the tabloid press at the time attacking/exposing PIE at the time but was there really such an uncritical approach from the radical left in general?

As someone who was a child/adolescent in the seventies, I've never really bought into the argument that "these things" were seen differently then. The general attitude to paedophilia didn't seem that different to that of today. Having said that the school I went to (a boys grammar) had a teacher with a predatory reputation.
This was common knowledge and left some people angry, but was general just joked about - perhaps because he was seen as a nuisance rather than a threat. His colleagues and the head would have been aware of this but clearly it wasn't seen as a major problem.

 

[ViolentPanda]

that sounds like you taking the alternative view they shouldnt apologise, because theyre well known politicians.

No, that's how you're choosing to interpret it.
If their behaviour can be proven to have caused problems to individuals, then of course they should apologise.
Should they apologise on the premise that their behaviour back then might have caused problems to individuals? That'd be a bit fucking daft, don't you think?

 

[Casually Red]

so theres no problem advocating for pedos rights to abuse and posses distribute pornography if it cant be proven thats ever caused problems .

 

[ViolentPanda]

What was the general reaction to the presentation?

I can certainly remember the tabloid press at the time attacking/exposing PIE at the time but was there really such an uncritical approach from the radical left in general?

Not really. The copper in the first article Casually Red linked to rants on about "political correctness", but frankly people tended to be much less "politically correct" back then, even supposedly "right on" lefties. PIE were playing a hand of cards that presented paedophilia as a valid "sexuality", but a lot of people just carried on thinking "fucking sex cases".

As someone who was a child/adolescent in the seventies, I've never really bought into the argument that "these things" were seen differently then. The general attitude to paedophilia didn't seem that different to that of today. Having said that the school I went to (a boys grammar) had a teacher with a predatory reputation.

Societally, there were definitely issues around teenage girls that wouldn't be acceptable - the whole "if they're old enough to bleed..." schtick, for a start - nowadays, but IME there was still a clear delineation between someone leering at a physically-mature girl in her mid-teens, and advocating having a sexual relationship (that is, an ongoing relationship) with a 10 year-old.

This was common knowledge and left some people angry, but was general just joked about - perhaps because he was seen as a nuisance rather than a threat. His colleagues and the head would have been aware of this but clearly it wasn't seen as a major problem.

Had a similar issue at my own (south London) boys' grammar. Of course, in the late '90s the bloke got sent down for 12 years for an accumulation of noncery and paedo-porn-related offences, so his "reputation" was obviously well-earned.

 

[Sirena]

What was the general reaction to the presentation?

I can certainly remember the tabloid press at the time attacking/exposing PIE at the time but was there really such an uncritical approach from the radical left in general?

As someone who was a child/adolescent in the seventies, I've never really bought into the argument that "these things" were seen differently then. The general attitude to paedophilia didn't seem that different to that of today. Having said that the school I went to (a boys grammar) had a teacher with a predatory reputation.
This was common knowledge and left some people angry, but was general just joked about - perhaps because he was seen as a nuisance rather than a threat. His colleagues and the head would have been aware of this but clearly it wasn't seen as a major problem.

I don't remember that much. This was at a conference mostly to do with womens' and gay rights. It was all about oppression this and oppression that and the PIE, with their presentation about the age of consent and how children's sexual rights had to be acknowledged too, were listened to politely. There was no barracking or heckling.

Afterwards, I think some of us were a bit questioning about the implications of the presentation but it was no more than that. In a conference whose badge was 'There can be no liberation without sexual liberation', it did not seem out of place. There were gay guys there, well below the prevailing age of consent, and it may have seemed particularly relevant and reasonable to them.

ETA. I think there was an understanding that children's sexual rights only extended to teenagers or those who had reached sexual maturity....

 

[ViolentPanda]

so theres no problem advocating for pedos rights to abuse and posses distribute pornography if it cant be proven thats ever caused problems .

I've got no problem with anyone advocating for anything, as long as they're prepared to pay the consequences down the line if their advocacy causes problems.

Have you even bothered to consider the poor likelihood of such advocacy ever having been successful? I suspect not.

 

[ViolentPanda]

If I remember correctly, the PIE platform in the mid 70s was more about reducing the age of consent than anything.

They agitated a fair bit for a liberalisation of the obscenity laws, as a good few of them got nicked for importing Scandi paedo-porn.
They had no more success than anyone else in getting the obscenity laws diluted or re-addressed back then.

 

[ViolentPanda]

There actually was a proper loony left afterall . No wonder Thatcher kept getting elected.

Of course, some people may be aware that the whole PIE thing was over by the time the "loony left" tag was coined (specifically at the GLC during it's last 2 years by the Evening Standard, and then deployed ad nauseam by the right-wing press after that), so gobbing off about a "proper loony left" isn't quite accurate, unless you're making the label (which apparently required the "excesses" of the mid-eighties before it came into being) retrospectively-attributable.

 

[Casually Red]

I think its just you making a nit picking deal out of fuck all , meself.