The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.
- Thread starter Casually Red
- Start date
SaskiaJayne
Rural Guerrilla
This is simply the DM desperately trying to dish any dirt they can find on Labour, same as the Red Ed's dad thing. PIE were often in the news in the 70s & were universally condemned in the press at the time.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
I dont think its the same thing at all as the Milliband thing. And the kiddy fiddlers were rightly universally condemened in the press. Which makes left wing support for them one of the more baffling aspects of identity politics.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Quelle surprise.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
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.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
You're clutching at straws, dude.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
better than clutching at kids
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
You're conflating the personal politics of 3 people (Harman, Dromey and Hewitt) with the organisational remit of the NCCL. They may have been "left wing", but I'm pretty sure you (like 30 years-worth of muckrakers who've gone over this story) have no proof that there was coherent "left wing" support for PIE.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
By the press, and by most activists across the political and social spectrum.
These PIE-related smears always fall over at a certain point, that point being that the NCCL, by its' own remit, didn't get to pick and choose the people and groups whose civil liberties it examined. If someone came to them claiming that their civil liberties were being infringed, it was their remit to examine the claim(s), and to act accordingly. To not do so would break their articles of trust.
I notice that the Telegraph is getting in on the act too, more generalised smearing.
Casually Red
tomorrow belongs to me
Im quite sure a great many ..the vast majority..on the left despised kiddy fiddlers . However even the current leader of Liberty admits they infiltrated the NCCL. And its not as if they were hiding what they were.
And Im not sure what it is your trying to accuse me of here. Smells a bit like deflecting.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I'm not "trying to accuse you" of anything. If I did so, it would be in plain language, to your face.
As for Chakrabarti saying that the NCCL were infiltrated, she was at best a kid when all this happened, and is spinning it. The NCCL didn't really have a choice but to represent PIE and allow them associate membership until their claims could be thoroughly examined. Once they were, PIE were kicked out. That it happened during a national outcry against PIE has always looked like the NCCL used the outcry as an excuse, but as has been argued successfully several times in the last 30+ years, both the NCCL's internal documentation and commentary of the time showed them to have been moving against PIE before the outcry.
SpineyNorman
Inappropriate content removed
IIRC some on the left were taken in by PIE because they were clever in what they told people they were all about. If you were, for example, a 21 year old gay man with a 19 year old sexual partner at that time you'd have been a paedo in the eyes of the law. People on the left rightly had sympathy for such people so the PIE made out that was what they were all about and that's how they'd have sold themselves to someone like Harman and wouldn't have told them about the kiddy stuff.
They're (Harman and the nccl) definitely guilty of being dangerously naive but I'm not sure they were ever consciously pro-paedo.
They're (Harman and the nccl) definitely guilty of being dangerously naive but I'm not sure they were ever consciously pro-paedo.
Last edited:
barney_pig
Po-cha-na-quar-hip
Their pamphlets and books were still on the 'sexual politics' of the local lefty bookshop in the late 90s when I moved to reading.
nino_savatte
No pasaran!
Très drôle.
Tankus
Amused OAP
BBC 2 newsnight led with it tonight , but Paxo didn't do the Harman interview , it was Kunessburg who is a bit more easily dismissed, not sure Harman did herself any favours, and pretty much ensured the mails continued interest after stating that they,were the problem in printing young people in bikinis .....
likesfish
You can't park here sir
Back in the 70s any gayman under 21 was classed as a victim so pie had a legit
Arguement to start with.
Not sure the mail should be digging up attitudes from 30 years ago its unlikely to win that one
I vaugely remember pie were survived legitmatly for a few years before most of its members were jailed for nonce related stuff
Arguement to start with.
Not sure the mail should be digging up attitudes from 30 years ago its unlikely to win that one
I vaugely remember pie were survived legitmatly for a few years before most of its members were jailed for nonce related stuff
Puddy_Tat
naturally fluffy
not so.
i'm not sure there was an age where the law divided victim from criminal, or to what extent it was at the discretion of the police / prosecution authorities, but men aged 16-20 who took part in consensual activity certainly could be and were prosecuted under the criminal law as it stood at the time.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
PIE were a bit more blatant than that. They campaigned around both equalisation and lowering of age of consent laws. Many people were arguing for lowering the AoC, and even abolishing it (with some other proviso's being introduced for child protection). They would have made a big thing of 22 year olds with 16 year old boyfriends, ie a much bigger age gap. That was, after all, what they were ultimately interested in.
Harmans interview last night was rubbish, but she really did have very little to do with them, and was part of the move to get rid of them. Hewitt has more questions to answer - but she's a retired Labourite, so the Mail isn't as interested in her.
she is attacking the Mail on twitter
Harriet Harman @HarrietHarman 42m
When it comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons from the Daily Mail? pic.twitter.com/MXmWhOILKQ
i've said it on the other thread i am sure but Patricia Hewitt - this stuff, Islington and then Childrens Minister. ffs. no shame.
Harriet Harman @HarrietHarman 42m
When it comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons from the Daily Mail? pic.twitter.com/MXmWhOILKQ
i've said it on the other thread i am sure but Patricia Hewitt - this stuff, Islington and then Childrens Minister. ffs. no shame.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
wot no mention of margaret hodge?she is attacking the Mail on twitter
Harriet Harman @HarrietHarman 42m
When it comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons from the Daily Mail? pic.twitter.com/MXmWhOILKQ
i've said it on the other thread i am sure but Patricia Hewitt - this stuff, Islington and then Childrens Minister. ffs. no shame.
actually i've got my shameless Ministers muddled up there. It was Hodge at Islington and then Childrens Minister wasn't it
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
I've not seen the letter, but the mail has and they say it argued child porn should not be banned unless it's proven that the children abused were harmed. Her response to the claim is point 3 here.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
actually i've got my shameless Ministers muddled up there. It was Hodge at Islington and then Childrens Minister wasn't it
Yup.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
fabian-paedoism, infiltrate soppy left-wingers and liberals, try to pull strings - and outside of these organisations try to associate child-abuse with the wider social challenges to other taboos.
google tells me you have just invented this phrase. i salute you.
what were they thinking ffs.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
As I said earlier in the thread, not a lot of support - many activists saw through the victim schtick to what lay behind it, hence the decent amount of support Stonewall etc got from the left in comparison to PIE.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
quoted at 6 mins in - http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03wsyqm/Newsnight_24_02_2014/ Undoubtedly true. Tho rather misleading as it was a paper supporting the creation of child porn laws, but demanding greater evidence of it being 'pornographic'
Similar threads
