Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.

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".
Sorry but no. She was obliged to give her name, address, the registration to the third party and to any witnesses. If she did not own the vehicle she was also obliged to give the name of the owning organisation and their address. It was a clear breach of the law.
 
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).
30 years is a long time in anyone's language. so, times changing? at the same speed as they ever did.
 
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.

Ironically his campaign on the issue would likely have exposed his pal then Tory MP Peter Morrison.
 
30 years is a long time in anyone's language. so, times changing? at the same speed as they ever did.

Hmm. I do take your point--think of how quickly people are radicalized during revolutions--but I can't think of another period when attitudes to sex have shifted so rapidly as they have since, say 1960. Surely the emergence of a "generation gap" proves this?
 
Hmm. I do take your point--think of how quickly people are radicalized during revolutions--but I can't think of another period when attitudes to sex have shifted so rapidly as they have since, say 1960. Surely the emergence of a "generation gap" proves this?
attitudes to sex fluctuate, always have and always will. what you're talking about is reduction of the effects of sex - treatments for stds and contraception.
 
attitudes to sex fluctuate, always have and always will.

I disagree. Attitudes to sex are remarkable for their consistency from Socrates to Shakespeare.

If you know of a period when such attitudes changed as drastically as they have since 1960, please name it.
 
I disagree. Attitudes to sex are remarkable for their consistency from Socrates to Shakespeare.

If you know of a period when such attitudes changed as drastically as they have since 1960, please name it.

You will have to limit it geographically. It's only in the last decade or so that the world has become the world.
 
attitudes have changed massively from socrates to shakespeare and since. Each major epoch has had very different mores, closely related to the need to have small or large families. Slave societies thrived better with small families (fewer to split the estate between) so non-reproductive relations were happily supported.With the development of feudalism bigger families were more useful (more serfs you didnt have to support to work for you) so monogamous relations were encouraged. Most basic gay and lesbian histories would cover the subject.
 
Their pamphlets and books were still on the 'sexual politics' of the local lefty bookshop in the late 90s when I moved to reading.

Topcat has related how he encountered the same . Ive posted an article on the WP website expressing a great deal of sympathy for them . In concert with the accusations against the NCCL that points to a level of co ordinated sympathy and support for them among the libertarian left.
 
attitudes have changed massively from socrates to shakespeare and since. Each major epoch has had very different mores, closely related to the need to have small or large families. Slave societies thrived better with small families (fewer to split the estate between) so non-reproductive relations were happily supported.With the development of feudalism bigger families were more useful (more serfs you didnt have to support to work for you) so monogamous relations were encouraged. Most basic gay and lesbian histories would cover the subject.
Thinking about it, I don't think you could even approach this as a subject except in tiny, unrepresentative bits. For instance, I'm reading 'Eros and Magic in the Renaissance' and it covers a lot of metaphysical thinking concerning love (and sex) in the 14th and 15th centuries but this sort of thought would only have really touched the literate, or super-literate, classes. It wouldn't have really reached the overwhelming majority of the population: poor people living in the countryside. No-one would have been asking them what they thought.

And the same thing would have been happening in every age. The best picture would only ever be of city-dwelling, literate classes. Out in the country, attitudes would have been private (it is about sex, after all) and unrecorded.

So an historian of gayness might notice (for example) the rash of pamphlets in the 16th century railing against male actors playing women's roles in the theatre and the effect this was having on society in general but, again, this would just be a literate, city response to a city phenomenon.
 
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.

yeah well...many of them were too busy championing child molesters to worry about that stuff .
 
Topcat has related how he encountered the same . Ive posted an article on the WP website expressing a great deal of sympathy for them . In concert with the accusations against the NCCL that points to a level of co ordinated sympathy and support for them among the libertarian left.
Anyone then (or now) who managed to absorb PIE/Nambla type ideas into their sexual politics was a fucking idiot - no, something significantly worse than that. There was a logic to how it happened, a kind of misguided reaction to all kinds of establishments, political, medical and even legal, seeking to equate homosexuality with child abuse - but it was still, even in that context, an extreme idiocy. However, to imply the left of the 70s and 80s was awash with even ambiguity about noncery is just plain wrong.

As an oldie who was just about politically active around then, I can remember certainly knowing what the word paedophile meant and doing a doubletake when PIE announced itself to the world. I also remember the point being made about the right wanting to portray gays and lesbians as more likely to be child abusers - but realising that seeing this as a reason for engagement with active paedophiles as an absurd political non-sequitor. Yes, there was the obvious point that all ages of consent are somewhat arbitrary and socially constructed, but giving any kind of credence to those who wanted to assault children was something profoundly different. Suppose what I'm saying is for someone around the age of 18, not exactly sophisticated, who probably hadn't read a single word of queer theory, this was still a no brainer. From what I remember, for most of the left it actually was a no brainer - and should have been for the Harman et al.
 
i forgot to add the sparts to that list too

http://www.spartacist.org/print/english/wv/1027/porn.html

Our line should be simple enough to grasp for any self-described Marxist: Government out of the bedroom! But Gilman joins forces with purveyors of the truly twisted “morality” of the capitalist rulers and their state. Gilman’s smear of NAMBLA gives the game away. NAMBLA is an organization that supports the sexual rights of youth, including those in relationships with older men, and opposes laws that punish consensual relationships, such as reactionary “age of consent” laws. For this it has been the target of a vicious, decades-long witchhunt by the capitalist state and media. Gilman’s cheering on the crusade against NAMBLA is lamentably common for pseudo-socialists and establishment gay rights groups, serving as a measure of their proximity to bourgeois “family values” hypocrisy and their great distance from the class line, let alone from the remotest concept of real human freedom.

Sounding like the Victorian judges who imprisoned Oscar Wilde not only for homosexuality but also for “corrupting the morals of youth,” Gilman rants about NAMBLA supporters’ alleged “power over youth through their pocket books” and echoes the bigotry of the RCP in slandering NAMBLA as “child molesters.” To bolster his refusal to defend NAMBLA, Gilman asserts that “children cannot be expected to give ‘effective consent’,” period. Millions of sexually active teenagers can tell you differently, not to mention thousands of years’ worth of anthropological evidence, including literature, paintings, sculpture. “Age of consent” laws are aimed not at “protecting our children” but at imposing abstinence on and promoting guilt in youth who wish to have sex—and at locking up adults who “deviate” from the sexual “norms” that the ruling class tries to foist on the masses while they themselves, more often than not, honor those norms in the breach.
The Victorians put under lock and key all the artwork portraying sex, paganism and naked bodies that Britain had looted from ancient civilizations in the lands they conquered for their Empire. They also locked up Oscar Wilde. Gilman’s position draws from this well. Perhaps he thinks that the three topless women who carried an ANSWER Coalition banner in the “Free Bradley Manning” contingent at the recent gay pride parade in San Francisco were exploiting themselves. At any rate, his anti-porn nonsense and anti-NAMBLA screed play into the hands of a contemporary, very real anti-sex witchhunt by the capitalist state.

:eek::hmm:
 
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....

so the communist party differed from the libertarians on the thorny issue of identity politics. Concentrating on class conflict as the issue at hand. And while Thatcher was advocating fucking miners the libertarians were advocating fucking minors .
 
so the communist party differed from the libertarians on the thorny issue of identity politics. Concentrating on class conflict as the issue at hand. And while Thatcher was advocating fucking miners the libertarians were advocating fucking minors .
wanker_mug-r84c7cb866bb348c3b269720990d266e4_x7jgr_8byvr_324.jpg
 
so the communist party differed from the libertarians on the thorny issue of identity politics. Concentrating on class conflict as the issue at hand. And while Thatcher was advocating fucking miners the libertarians were advocating fucking minors .

Gay rights isn't (necessarily) identity politics.
 
Anyone then (or now) who managed to absorb PIE/Nambla type ideas into their sexual politics was a fucking idiot - no, something significantly worse than that. There was a logic to how it happened, a kind of misguided reaction to all kinds of establishments, political, medical and even legal, seeking to equate homosexuality with child abuse - but it was still, even in that context, an extreme idiocy.

As an oldie who was just about politically active around then, I can remember certainly knowing what the word paedophile meant and doing a doubletake when PIE announced itself to the world. I also remember the point being made about the right wanting to portray gays and lesbians as more likely to be child abusers - but realising that seeing this as a reason for engagement with active paedophiles as an absurd political non-sequitor. Yes, there was the obvious point that all ages of consent are somewhat arbitrary and socially constructed, but giving any kind of credence to those who wanted to assault children was something profoundly different. Suppose what I'm saying is for someone around the age of 18, not exactly sophisticated, who probably hadn't read a single word of queer theory, this was still a no brainer. From what I remember, for most of the left it actually was a no brainer - and should have been for the Harman et al.


thats essentially been my point throughout . But for making it Ive been subject to repeated name calling along with an avalanche of outright denial, minimisation and obfuscation . You make clear you knew what it meant . Callaghan and co knew what paedophile meant and tried to drive them public life , as did the media, while certain leftists libertarians accross the left spectrum took the nonces side . The obfuscators on here claim they didnt know what it meant, and nobody else did either...you and i know thats bollocks . And then they still try and say in the next breath they were vermin they wanted rid of .

My point is essentially identical to yours, there were complete fucking idiots on the libertarian left whose preoccupation with identity politics was to the detriment of the overall left and an embarassment. There was no trojan horse, PIE were exactly what it said on the tin, but these wankers actually believed the propaganda that these false social constructs vis a vis sexual norms and taboos should be torn down by the left.

Those that cant admit there were fucking idiots who were influential within the libertarian left and simply made a massive mistake on this issue are engaging in denial. Fair play to those who arent because some of these explanations are an insult to peoples intelligence.
However, to imply the left of the 70s and 80s was awash with even ambiguity about noncery is just plain wrong.

except i most certainly havent done that, ive repeatedly emphasised most leftists despised them . Those whove been engaging in denial have implied I implied that as part of their obfuscation .
 
it isnt necessarily a left wing preoccupation either

Bollocks. left wing can be broadly defined as pro-equality. You're either in favour of equality or you're not. And equality includes extending the same rights to gay people as we do heterosexual ones.
 
Bollocks. left wing can be broadly defined as pro-equality. You're either in favour of equality or you're not. And equality includes extending the same rights to gay people as we do heterosexual ones.


its not bollocks at all and its as much a neo liberal issue as it is a left wing one .
 
Back
Top Bottom