The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.

[Casually Red]

Because they were always a small minority within the organisation, they didn't control policy, .
.

except the BBC has broadcast tonight evidence of them sitting on the steering committee, which in my experience of steering committees has a wee bit of an input into policy and stuff.

they were a vermin to be got rid off. Which they did

after 9 years, 9 years of high profile government campaigns against them and a number of high profile prosecutions. They were shamed into getting rid of them by widespread public disgust at the publicity around the scumbags , which is a very different thing altogether.

Simply put your being highly disngenuous.

 

[belboid]

I cant see anything on the BBC website about the SC, so cant comment on that.

It's interesting how you turn seven years into nine. Thing is, in 76 - for reasons you deliberately ignore - there was genuine uncertainty about exactly what 'paedophile' meant, when it became clear moves were immediately made to sideline and remove them.

 

[Casually Red]

they were there between 76 and 83. This has been well established for years, it isn't news.

the BBC are saying 75 to 84, and some posts back you were saying it was a couple of years.

And if the WP thing is the worst you've found after three days digging for shit on this & the left, well, it just shows how weak a case you've got. Try responding to what's actually been written on the thread and people might take you seriously.

I havent been digging at all, Ive been at work and had a lot more on my plate than the embarassing skeletons of a few middle class libertarian fuckwits to concern myself with this past 3 days. And as far as Im concerned most leftists despised them. A few more enlightened libertarians regarded them as a persecuted minority. Hence my use of the Workers Power article to illustrate that point.

Something Ive written on the thread, and you plainly havent responded to. Instead just shouted some abuse at me for having the audacity to quote a left libertarian defence of misunderstood and persecuted child molesters that kind of goes against the everybody hated them narrative..

 

[Casually Red]

I cant see anything on the BBC website about the SC, so cant comment on that.

It's interesting how you turn seven years into nine. Thing is, in 76 - for reasons you deliberately ignore - there was genuine uncertainty about exactly what 'paedophile' meant, when it became clear moves were immediately made to sideline and remove them.

the BBC are saying they joined in 75 and were there until 84. Theres nothing interesting whatsoever about calculating 9 out of that. Its interesting how you originally turned it into a couple of years though.

youre seriously telling me it took 9 or 7 ..years for college educated people to figure out paedophile meant someone who likes to fuck kids ?

They were gotten rid of at around the same time a number of very high profile prosecutions against their members generated widespread public disgust...work of the rabid media no doubt.. They most certainly werent gotten rid of when the likes of James Callaghan was leading a witch hunt against them. Its amazing how James Callaghan and the tabloids knew exactly what they were but the libertarians didnt.

 

[belboid]

I have said repeatedly that it took 'a couple of years' for them to work out (for not entirely bad reasons) what PIE meant by 'paedophilia', and that it took a another four or five to fully deal with them. If you want to claim the high ground, stop being so dishonest. The main issue was around an equal age of consent. But perhaps you're not keen on that?

 

[Casually Red]

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?

If this was a tory group accused of this very same thing everybody would be rightly up in arms about it. But because its the other end of the spectrum theres all sorts of minimisation and obfuscation. Its like listening to certain catholics defending the churches inaction . Partisanship overcoming basic logic and the necessity for those who have sheilded scumbags to be shamed over it. At least the crows had the self awareness to hide these cunts, not make victims out of them . Its denial and Ive heard it all before in different contexts.

 

[belboid]

If thy were genuinely interested in the (oft reported on previously) story, they'd hone in on Hewitt, who did (according to reports) make dodgy, possibly PIE inspired, comments. But the fact that they focus on Harman, the deputy Labour leader, who joined the NCCL later when it was moving against PIE, shows it is a straightforward throwing of as much shit and seeing what sticks, same as Miliband and his dad.

 

[Batboy]

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.

That about sums it up, I'm no fan of Hewitt, but this story is bullshit . A retrospective witch hunt is the trend of the day. The media can be such cunts.

I remember when PIE were in the public gaze, it was like what the fuck? How an organisation like this could stick its head out in this way was remarkable. I don't think it was just Harman & co who were naive, the majority of the nation at that time probably were on this subject.

If they want to look at a politician who was complicit in being blind to child abuse and politically expedient then they should turn their attention to Margaret Hodge... She's got real history.

 

[barney_pig]

If CR was truly digging into the left to find shit, then 5 mins with the spartacists would give him a ton

 

[stowpirate]

Establishment snoozepaper has jumped on the bandwagon suggesting an election is coming?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...et-Harmans-defence-over-paedophile-links.html

 

[Fozzie Bear]

The news tonight is saying something about them being on the steering committee . And they were there longer than a couple of years by the looks of things.

Newsnight said that one member of PIE was also on the NCCL gay rights steering group.

Which I would guess was different from PIE as an org being on the NCCL steering group. But still a bad idea, obviously.

 

[newbie]

True, I recall fear and anxiety about being late for class and have a much harder time dealing with my father's heavy handed punishments (slipper) and general drunken belligerence.
I suspect we are of a similar age, Redcogs, when such things simply failed to register.

yes indeed. I had neither drunkenness nor sexual abuse to deal with, but the violence from teachers is still imprinted. One in particular had a trademark of dragging children to the front of the class by their hair and shaking them, still by the hair, as hard as she could while screaming at them. For some minor misdemeanor. Another would hurl board rubbers around or heave kids up by an ear.

Children were thought of, and treated, differently in those days. The context has changed so much.

 

[nino_savatte]

I cant see anything on the BBC website about the SC, so cant comment on that.

It's interesting how you turn seven years into nine. Thing is, in 76 - for reasons you deliberately ignore - there was genuine uncertainty about exactly what 'paedophile' meant, when it became clear moves were immediately made to sideline and remove them.

Exactly. The word used back then was 'pederast', which is still the more accurate term for someone who sexually abuses children.

 

[nino_savatte]

So when is the Daily Heil going to do a splash about the unnamed minister (whose name most of us know) in the Thatcher cabinet?

 

[brogdale]

So when is the Daily Heil going to do a splash about the unnamed minister (whose name most of us know) in the Thatcher cabinet?

I do this with a very heavy heart, ( and deeply regret offering a link...but there is no other way); they already have:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...paedophile-preyed-boys-home--Hague-known.html

 

[nino_savatte]

I do this with a very heavy heart, ( and deeply regret offering a link...but there is no other way); they already have:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...paedophile-preyed-boys-home--Hague-known.html

I was thinking more of the man who's the sort of namesake of a Swansea City footballer.

 

[redcogs]

Children were thought of, and treated, differently in those days. The context has changed so much.

The improved context for children being highly welcome.

The ferment of organisations in the 1970s (that were a development of 1960s radicalism) automatically gave a certain legitimacy to dubious bodies like PIE. i was a naive SWP bod at the time, and i can certainly recall PIE, and being alert to the controversy surrounding them. i even took the line (which was probably highly personal, ie, not handed down by Cliff Hallas Foot) that it was far better that people with unacceptable sexual perversions should not be driven underground by conservative convention - and that the emergence of bodies like PIE was preferable to them secretly exploiting and damaging endless numbers of kids. But the truth was that few understood then how predatory paedos could operate, and (regrettably) there was perhaps too much enthusiasm for an overly liberal response to this inherited sociosexual issue. Ideally, the left could have dealt with the matter differently, and refused point blank to engage at any level with the paedophile initiators. But we didn't, and i don't see how we could regard this as anything other than a serious blunder. The response of idiot professional politicians like Harman are beside the point really, for their main concern was transparently the career.

All that said, i still believe that the left, on many other issues - gay liberation, womens rights, anti racism, anti facism and so on have had a massively important and positive impact. The better context for children that we have today didn't come from nowhere. we helped construct it, and can surely take some pride in our efforts?

 

[newbie]

The improved context for children being highly welcome.

The ferment of organisations in the 1970s (that were a development of 1960s radicalism) automatically gave a certain legitimacy to dubious bodies like PIE. i was a naive SWP bod at the time,

well I



and i can certainly recall PIE, and being alert to the controversy surrounding them. i even took the line (which was probably highly personal, ie, not handed down by Cliff Hallas Foot) that it was far better that people with unacceptable sexual perversions should not be driven underground by conservative convention - and that the emergence of bodies like PIE was preferable to them secretly exploiting and damaging endless numbers of kids. But the truth was that few understood then how predatory paedos could operate, and (regrettably) there was perhaps too much enthusiasm for an overly liberal response to this inherited sociosexual issue. Ideally, the left could have dealt with the matter differently, and refused point blank to engage at any level with the paedophile initiators. But we didn't, and i don't see how we could regard this as anything other than a serious blunder. The response of idiot professional politicians like Harman are beside the point really, for their main concern was transparently the career.

All that said, i still believe that the left, on many other issues - gay liberation, womens rights, anti racism, anti facism and so on have had a massively important and positive impact. The better context for children that we have today didn't come from nowhere. we helped construct it, and can surely take some pride in our efforts?[/quote]

 

[RedDragon]

All that said, i still believe that the left, on many other issues - gay liberation, womens rights, anti racism, anti facism and so on have had a massively important and positive impact...

I think it's fair to say Women's, Black, and Gay liberation movements had a massive impact on the left.

As a working class kid I still remember hurt I felt when told by my local Communist Party and T.U branch being gay was a "bourgeois deviation" and come the revolution I'd be cured over-night.

 

[newbie]

I think it's fair to say Women's, Black, and Gay liberation movements had a massive impact on the left.

As a working class kid I still remember hurt I felt when told by my local Communist Party and T.U branch being gay was a "bourgeois deviation" and come the revolution I'd be cured over-night.

your quote is messed up, 'twasn't me saying that.

I agree with it though

e2a, as the impact of what you said has sunk in, I agree more with you... the 'left' in the 70s was a very mixed bag with some massively dodgy attitudes which were more part of the problem than part of the solution, for all the fine words.

 

[Sirena]

I think it's fair to say Women's, Black, and Gay liberation movements had a massive impact on the left.

As a working class kid I still remember hurt I felt when told by my local Communist Party and T.U branch being gay was a "bourgeois deviation" and come the revolution I'd be cured over-night.

I agree with this. I remember that the early 70s gay movement was embraced (possibly infiltrated - but in a supportive way) by the IMG and the IS in particular but never by the CP, who seemed to consider it a diversion from the main class battle. There was a particular outrage at the CP's Sue Slipman who had 'betrayed' the gay movement in a way that I can't now remember....

 

[ViolentPanda]

You and me both mate. Hardly anyone gave a fuck.

Can't remember where I read it, but I remember some psychologist arguing that child sexual abuse is so "beyond the pale"/taboo that throughout history it's been a crime that gets deliberately ignored by "the powers that be", because facing up to the sheer scale of it, and the damage it causes would mean reassessing one's entire worldview.
Sadly, that means that people who were/are abused remain stuck in a sort of twilight world where "normal people" would subconsciously rather not believe us, because of the cognitive dissonance involved if they do believe.

 

[ViolentPanda]

christ.

He was a definite paedo-nonce, was Christ.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Good grief, Alistair C******* used to write for Forum magazine.

Cuntball? Yep. He used to write the replies to letters (and the letters themselves).

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's a very subjective thing. I can more easily give examples of what 'not very traumatic' means

Well quite. It is subjective.
It's well-known among counsellors and therapists that it's not the degree of trauma that necessarily scars people. "Not very traumatic" is entirely a quality personal to the abusee, which makes "rating" acts on a scale of "not very traumatic" to "traumatic" a bit anile.

 

[ViolentPanda]

From the 1950s, i can remember being involved in two 'non traumatic' sexual encounters with adult men. i was nine years old. i was with mates of the same age. my mum was angry and upset when i told her. She called in the police. That was when things became traumatic..

BTW, not defending PIE, or noncery, or anything remotely approaching that - just recognising that LiamO has a point.

Trauma, as you found out, tends to be personal to the event.

 

[ViolentPanda]

It's Dawkins's "just mild touching up" all over again.

Pretty much. It was twattish when Dawkins tried that argument, and it's twattish now.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Not in many working class areas: In the late 70's I spent some time in the T.A with men who lived on the local estates, their behaviour towards women was often appalling but when Nonce's, and yes Paedo's were mentioned as being on the estate, they would go crazy, saying they would string them up, etc, but usually these weren't 'flashers' who I remember my older sisters friends saw as a bit of a joke, something changed in the 80s', imo.

Knowledge changed, as did exposure of the scale of the problem. Bear in mind that during the eighties we had horrors revealed like the paedophile care home worker who was HIV positive, and had been raping boys in his care, and the pimping of underage boys and girls from care homes by the staff and/or local pimps.
People still prefer to believe it's a small problem, mostly a matter of "stranger danger". Fact is, it's a big problem, and 7 out of 10 complaints involve abuse by a family member.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i don't understand?

Simple version - Liam is a self-righteous twat.
Complex version - Liam believes that there are two ways to do everything: His way, and any other. Anyone who disagrees with him, is therefore to be demonised.

HTH

 

[ViolentPanda]

at some of the comments.

at the risk of being labelled a nonce apologist -

the nearest I came to any sort of 'abuse' as a child was one of our games teachers at secondary school who had a bit of a bee in his bonnet about us wearing wet underpants home (if we'd worn them while playing rugby / football in the rain) and would have a bit of a feel to check we weren't.

in hindsight, i'm not entirely sure this was innocent on his part.

i don't think any of us took it entirely seriously.

i don't think i'm particularly traumatised or damaged by the experience.

while i'm neither excusing behaviour like that, or suggesting it's not wrong, i don't think it's quite in the same league as full scale rape...

It's not "in the same league" with regard to how the criminal justice system gauges severity, but for some victims what we might regard as a minor occurrence can be more traumatic than we might think. It very much depends on the psyche of the victim at that time as to how traumatic an event is.