yep just read back through this thread more thoroughly, thanks
The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.
- Thread starter Casually Red
- Start date
yep just read back through this thread more thoroughly, thanks
TopCat
Putin fanboy
There was plenty that was awful in those day regarding sexual politics. if you ever find a copy of a compendium of Forum magazine (available at the time in WH Smith's)you will be regaled with tales of people fantasizing of fucking their children and worse.
As for the Daily Mail shit stirring, why criticise them over this? The shit deserves to be stirred up and thrown in Harman's face. Does anyone think the DM would not attack a Tory on this issue?
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Many thanks. This just goes to show Harman and many of her ilk have no innate moral compass at all.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
As I mentioned so called radical bookshops stocked PIE literature.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
From my reading of this last year when it was first re-raised, i think it was Hewitt who really has serious stuff to answer here.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
actually, having re-read your post - you aren't accurately reflecting the Mails accusation. Harman & the NCCL were calling for the toughening up of child porn laws, but saying the govt proposals had failings. The crucial line (which is the one the Mail are picking on) was about the need for a 'proof of harm.' Which, looking back, doesnt go anything like far enough, but isnt the same as calling for weakening laws.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
..but a lesser 'prize' for the Mail.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
City lights in San Francsiso (Linked to Nambla advocate allen Ginsberg) was ran by anarchists in the late 80s and 90s had it's windows regularly put through for stocking Nambla material.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Chakkers hadn't joined when any of the debates were taking place, its easy for her to say. Everyone else has to say why they didnt work to get PIE immediately barred. Which Dromey, to be fair to the tosser, did.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
The proof of harm issue is a revealing one. This would allow paedophiles to argue that a child as not harmed in taking child porn pics therefore they should not be prosecuted. At best Harman is an inept politician with a huge sense of entitlement. At worst she helped provide political cover for a loathsome bunch who caused massive harm.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Usually the teenage daughter (father's perspective) or teenage son (mother's perspective) rather than the toddlers, though.
I think, given their attacks on politicians per se, that they usually don't have to "spin" the evidence so hard.
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
In fact, city lights also published books by paedanarchist Peter Lamborn Wilson.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
Which goes some way to illustrating that PIE had successfully managed to mask their intent to anyone who didn't specifically know what they were about.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
this is largely benefit of hindsight stuff tho. She and the NCCL welcomed the introduction of CP laws, they pointed out they were too vague and imprecise. They did cover people taking photos of their own kids on the beach and the like. 'Harm' is not the word that should be used, but the point was a perfectly valid one. There are plenty of good issues to hit Harman over, but this isn't one of them.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
When I visited 121 bookshop in Railton Road as a 16 year old school leaver, I was able in an instant to ascertain that the magazine they stocked produced by PIE was being put out to reduce pressure on people who wanted to have sex with children, it was fucking obvious. That the people running the shop at the time could not see this, I mean they could read but not comprehend made me despair.
I ended up threatening the people at 121 over this, plus took and dumped the magazines in question. In fairness they then had a debate where they agreed not to stock it but really, it made me as a fairly uneducated youth despair of these so called radicals.
Yep,to my shame.It was presented as a libertarian ideal and about equality for gays and the ability of young teenagers to explore their sexuality without their lovers being criminalised.Very bad mistake,PIE managed to get under the radar and presented themselves as part of the fight for freedom and not child abusers.
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
AKA Hakim Bey.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Personally I think Harman was too focused on using her position in NCCL to springboard her into parliament to the position she surely feels is hers by birthright. But again, PIE were in their for years and years. Anyone associated with the hierarchy of NCCl is tainted because of this.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Why did she not use her influence and the organisational structures to drum them out? Why were they allowed to stay?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
When I worked in a bookshop, I didn't read everything we stocked (that'd have meant subjecting myself to 30+ Mills & Boon titles per month
).Thing is (and not to compare your actions in any way) they'd probably seen similar happen for stocking Gay News - A mate who worked for WHS at Waterloo said that happened regularly in the late '70s/early '80s, with some self-rightwous git coming in and taking the mags off of the shelf, then binning them (this being back when we actually still had bins on stations, prior to the Victoria bin-bomb) - and may not have understood your point until you apprised them of PIE's strategy.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
that's getting seriously stalinist.
All civil liberties groups have issues working out who to debar. The yanks merrily work with nazi's, because they believe they too have 'civil liberties.' NCCL didnt have a policy that allowed it to exclude affiliates, cos that would have been unlibertarian. They had to win the argument to introduce such a thing, and then introduce it, and then bar people under it. Dromey did do so. His wife, who was a lawyer, not an elected person, and so had to follow her orders, didn't do so publicaly, butthere is absolutely no record of her opposing anything Dromey did, or of not supporting him.
Hewitt has more on her plate.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
I appraised (121) them of PIE straight away. The magazine in question was aimed at kids and normalising adults having sex with them. If some one asks you to stock a magazine in a radical bookshop you are at least going to skim read it no? I can accept that in some large book you may not be aware of all or any of the arguments but not in what was a glorified comic.
Some thick, ignorant and fuckwitted idiots were on the scene in those days.
Some thick, ignorant and fuckwitted idiots were on the scene in those days.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Why did people not resign then? Would you be in an organisation that had such members? I think it was careerism that kept Harman and other in the NCCL. They have no shame. I loathe Harman, I hope this issue finishes her for good.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Because they were always a small minority within the organisation, they didn't control policy, they were a vermin to be got rid off. Which they did.
Harman's a turd, but I hope she destroys the Mail over this issue.
TopCat
Putin fanboy
Would you be in an organisation that had such members? Yes or No?
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
The other option is to leave after spreading as much info as possible around the affiliates and inviting them to also leave whilst the PIE remained as an affiliate and setting up another group until the other lot collapsed or found a way to do what was right. I have read that the then constitution was as you say, but have you seen an actual copy of that constitution?
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
Yes - indeed I possibly was (joined the NCCL for a year or so in 82 or 83). I had no idea about them at the PIE thing at the time, but the NCCL were the leading civil liberties group of the era, and generally sound. It took them a couple of years to wake up to what PIE were, but when they did, they dealt with them. Seems pretty reasonable, really.
PIE were a minor affiliate, letting them destroy the bigger organisation would have been counterproductive.
belboid
Exasperated, not angry.
i would have had a copy when I joined - tho that would possibly have been just after Dromey's amendments had gone through anyway. There was still debate about the principles going on tho, and whether it was ever right for (civil) libertarians to exclude people from membership, since doing so isnt very civil or libertarian.
ChrisD
.
I think I was a supporter/member of NCCL back in mid 1970s. I dont seem to remember ever knowing who else was a member /supporter or NCCL seriously campaigning on age of consent issues. There were plenty of important libertarian and censorship issues at the time and whilst the DM probably supported Mary Whitehouse, I and most of my friends supported NCCL and continue to support Liberty.
What really annoys me is how the DM is running the media agenda (last nights newsnight, world at one today etc.)
Christian Wolmar did a good interview on World at One (radio 4) just now. Seems that "Release" charity shared postal address with PIE for a bit then realised what they were about and told them to fuck off.
What really annoys me is how the DM is running the media agenda (last nights newsnight, world at one today etc.)
Christian Wolmar did a good interview on World at One (radio 4) just now. Seems that "Release" charity shared postal address with PIE for a bit then realised what they were about and told them to fuck off.
Similar threads
