The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.

[ViolentPanda]

I think that's a fair enough analogy in many ways - same for lots of the Trotskyite 'Entry-ist' entities of the 70's/80s.

Except of course that the Trots weren't out to have sex with children.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A colourful character who enjoyed chess and slavery. i share his enthusiasm for one and not the other.

Chess, slavery and kite-flying.
Oh, and having sex with his female slaves.

 

[ViolentPanda]

those days ..if only......this utter horseshit...this open sympathy for child molesters being persecuted and witch hunted is on the Workers Power website

http://www.fifthinternational.org/content/action-programme-gay-liberation
Inevitably lesbians and gay men have been pin-pointed as a threat to the family. Early warnings in Britain of the systematic gay-baiting that was to follow, came when Mary Whitehouse successfully prosecuted Gay News for blasphemy and when the Callaghan Labour Government – as part of its attempt to portray Labour as the party of the family – carried out a vicious, hysterical witch-hunt of the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). To broaden the onslaught paedophilia and homosexuality were lumped together by the popular press and gay men were portrayed as would-be child molesters. The fact that PIE, which included both heterosexuals and homosexuals in its ranks, stood four-square for consensual relations only and against molestation was characteristically ignored by the rabid press.


so much for the repetitive shit coming from VP and others insisting .oooh..the poor lefty identity politickers didnt know that the kiddy fiddler group wanted to molest kids . They got under the radar...nobody knew .

rubbish . Plenty still defending the poor persecuted child predators from the nasty rabid tabloids and intolerant moralists many years later .
fucking wankers.

Show me where I said that, or shut yer pie-hole.

 

[Red Cat]

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...

You probably didn't take it entirely seriously because as a child you were used to not being taken entirely seriously. You had no power as a school pupil. What would you do now if some bloke felt your 'underpants'?

There may well have been a child in your class who had experienced repeated sexual abuse within his family, perhaps since he was 2 or 3, and his experience may well have been different to yours.

 

[SaskiaJayne]

I would agree that before the 70s the word paedophile was not really used, I would guess that even adults did not know what the word mean't & certainly kids didn't. Kids were always warned not to talk to strangers, not to get into cars & that there were 'nasty' men around, but we were not told why we should not talk to strangers & why these men were 'nasty'. From my own memory, I remember reading about PIE in the News of the World & I'm sure the headline of the article was 'these evil men want to have sex with our children' or similar & my reaction would have been one of puzzlement, ie eh? how do you have sex with a child? Even then most kids were aware of what sex was by the age of 8 or 9 but the reaction was generally, yuk! & we were firmly told sex was something married people 'did'. People who were not paedophiles did not really know what paedophilia actually was, there was no information about it. 'Kiddy fiddlers' who appeared in court for sexually abusing small kids were known as 'perverts'. 18yr olds who were prosecuted for having sex with their 14yr old girlfriends & there were regular prosecutions for this in the 70s usually after girl's parents complained to police were not really regarded as 'perverts'.

So back to PIE & my recollection of it at the time in the 70s. Before 1967 sex between men was illegal & in '67 it became legal between consenting males over the age of 21 & only since 2001 has the age of consent been universally 16. My memory of PIE is that it was mainly campaigning to allow sex between men & teenaged boys not sex with prepubescent kids although I'm sure there were members who wanted this, but from my memory the face PIE presented to the world was as campaigning for gay rights & lowering of age of consent in that context. It did seem mainly about gay men wanting to have relationships with teenage boys not people wanting to sexually abuse 8yr olds. Its fair to say at the time that the mainstream would have found this abhorent but obviously libertarians at the time would argue that aoc for both hetro & gay sex should be the same & eventually they won the argument.

Its a shame that journos & MPs are also calling on Harriet Harman to apologise when really she has nothing to apologise for, these people are just taking the easy way out for fear of being branded paedo apologists, this really needs to be seen more about campaigning for the gay rights that we now take for granted. For Harman to apologise would just be giving the DM the victory that it wants. Politicians need to take a stand against the DM to show that it does not have the power & influence it thinks it does.

 

[newbie]

Not having a dog in a fight between the DM and Harman, I'd prefer them both to hole the other below the waterline. Nor really do I care about the historical accuracy or otherwise of the charges, nor about setting them in the context of the time, it's gone and and we're now where we are.

But I've been wondering what will come back to bite those who are now adults in 30 or 40 years time. Anyone who was grown up in the 70s has had to try to explain, and and to some extent justify, the attitudes that led to Saville, PIE, the catholic church and so on. Feeble bleating about how times have changed doesn't really cut it and we've had to recognise that.

We all want to be on the right side of history, but it's not always clear at the time just where it's heading... if we'd known then what we know now...

What will those who are currently small children, or not yet born, stare hard and point at us for?

 

[Sirena]

So back to PIE & my recollection of it at the time in the 70s. Before 1967 sex between men was illegal & in '67 it became legal between consenting males over the age of 21 & only since 2001 has the age of consent been universally 16. My memory of PIE is that it was mainly campaigning to allow sex between men & teenaged boys not sex with prepubescent kids although I'm sure there were members who wanted this, but from my memory the face PIE presented to the world was as campaigning for gay rights & lowering of age of consent in that context. It did seem mainly about gay men wanting to have relationships with teenage boys not people wanting to sexually abuse 8yr olds. Its fair to say at the time that the mainstream would have found this abhorent but obviously libertarians at the time would argue that aoc for both hetro & gay sex should be the same & eventually they won the argument.

Its a shame that journos & MPs are also calling on Harriet Harman to apologise when really she has nothing to apologise for, these people are just taking the easy way out for fear of being branded paedo apologists, this really needs to be seen more about campaigning for the gay rights that we now take for granted. For Harman to apologise would be just be giving the DM the victory that it wants. Politicians need to take a stand against the DM to show that it does not have the power & influence it thinks it does.

That was also my memory and that is also my conclusion. It is something from 40 years ago and is a non-story.

 

[phildwyer]

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'm probably a bit younger than you, but in the early 80s, heterosexual paedophilia was still less heavily stigmatized than adult homosexuality. Times change very quickly these days.

I remember when Geoffrey Dickens made his allegations in 1983, he was universally dismissed and derided, on the grounds that he was a fat, publicity-seeking Tory scumbag--and a working-class Tory to boot, which made it even worse (which was all true, but still).

 

[phildwyer]

What will those who are currently small children, or not yet born, stare hard and point at us for?

That's easy: destroying the environment.

 

[LiamO]

Except of course that the Trots weren't out to have sex with children.

I believe the analogy was meant to draw equivalence in their mutual 'Trojan Horse' agendas. But you already know this, don'y you?

 

[DotCommunist]

Harmans the one who rides a silverwing and tried to charge the taxpayer for her husbands wank films as well. The charge sheet is already long

 

[phildwyer]

Harmans the one who rides a silverwing and tried to charge the taxpayer for her husbands wank films as well.

I thought that was Smith. Or maybe they're all at it?

 

[DotCommunist]

ah it was indeed 'wrong about wacky baccy' jaqui. lets forget I said anything.

 

[redcogs]

I'm probably a bit younger than you, but in the early 80s, heterosexual paedophilia was still less heavily stigmatized than adult homosexuality. Times change very quickly these days.

I remember when Geoffrey Dickens made his allegations in 1983, he was universally dismissed and derided, on the grounds that he was a fat, publicity-seeking Tory scumbag--and a working-class Tory to boot, which made it even worse (which was all true, but still).

i knew someone from Dickens's constituency who thought that the right honourable member 'protesteth too much'.

 

[LiamO]

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.

which is why many therapists use the term Subjective Units of Distress (SUDs)... just like I said.

 

[LiamO]

Simple version - Liam is a self-righteous twat.

He said... somewhat self-righteously. Yawn.

 

[Sirena]

What will those who are currently small children, or not yet born, stare hard and point at us for?

Being suckered by easy propaganda?

 

[Tankus]

That's easy: destroying the environment.

Radiation contamination legacy

 

[phildwyer]

i knew someone from Dickens's constituency who thought that the right honourable member 'protesteth too much'.

Interesting. As I recall it, everyone assumed he was just using the issue for grotesque self-promotion, as many do today.

He was a nasty piece of work for sure, but if he'd waited 30 years he might well have succeeded.

 

[Sirena]

Interesting. As I recall it, everyone assumed he was just using the issue for grotesque self-promotion, as many do today.

He was a nasty piece of work for sure, but if he'd waited 30 years he might well have succeeded.

Geoffrey Dickens was a dangerous madman, as I recall.

 

[redcogs]

What will those who are currently small children, or not yet born, stare hard and point at us for?

i enjoyed the post newbie.

Climate change inaction of course, building more nuclear plants, particularly when we finally have a close to home melt down.

my favourite though is the failure to create a viable united left organisation with enough industrial clout to make a difference. i'm basing this on the understanding that my generation (dob 1950s) didn't recognise the significance of the political and economic shift that the Thatcherite assault on the TU's represented (with one or two exceptions). Almost 30 years after the NUM's defeat and we are still living the consequences. That defeat of trade unionism wasn't inevitable, and our side should have done more, and we should have done it with greater militancy. Labour and its malignant influence undercut the miners struggle, and they have set back social decency by decades. Kinnock, Willis the TUC leader, and hosts of other Labour fuckers of that generation bear a heavy responsibility. The craven pricks should face up to their personal guilt.

Todays young people can learn from their cowardice - hopefully they will.

 

[ViolentPanda]

I believe the analogy was meant to draw equivalence in their mutual 'Trojan Horse' agendas. But you already know this, don'y you?

Yes. I was pointing out that the analogy sucked.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Harmans the one who rides a silverwing and tried to charge the taxpayer for her husbands wank films as well. The charge sheet is already long

That was Home Secretary Smith, and the biker was Blears.

 

[fogbat]

That was Home Secretary Smith, and the biker was Blears.

IIRC, Harriet Harman is the one who, after a car accident, announced "I'm Harriet Harman, you know where you can get me" to a witness, then drove off.

If she'd used that as her campaign slogan, she'd have got my vote.

 

[DotCommunist]

people whoride silverwings should be barred from political office anyway

 

[fogbat]

people whoride silverwings should be barred from political office anyway

I thought they were what you were awarded for having sex with a pensioner.

 

[ViolentPanda]

IIRC, Harriet Harman is the one who, after a car accident, announced "I'm Harriet Harman, you know where you can get me" to a witness, then drove off.

If she'd used that as her campaign slogan, she'd have got my vote.

Yup, it was Harman that did that, although technically she didn't break the law as she stopped at the scene of the accident, and gave her "details" (such as they were), in fairness she should have done things "by the book".

 

[Wilf]

Yup, it was Harman that did that, although technically she didn't break the law as she stopped at the scene of the accident, and gave her "details" (such as they were), in fairness she should have done things "by the book".

A sub-Huhne offence.

 

[ViolentPanda]

A sub-Huhne offence.

TBF she did have her protection copper in the car with her, whereas all Huhne had was his winning personality and a weak-willed wife.

 

[phildwyer]

Geoffrey Dickens was a dangerous madman, as I recall.

For sure. But no worse than many people seeking to make their careers on anti-paedophilia today.