The NCCL, Harriet Harman and government funded childmolester propaganda.

[belboid]

It was pretty clear - you don't seem very keen on gay rights

 

[William of Walworth]

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 agree with all of this post, but (bolded bit) one of my main takes is that Harriet Harman isn't actually all that intelligent at all. (She was my MP for 17 years and I have reason to know )

Will return to this. Bit short of time ahead of work, right now.

Read the bulk of this thread last night. For now, belboid's posts also make a lot of sense to me.

 

[peterkro]

Wolmar writes on this today here and makes a lot of sense (and a couple of daft points). I think his later record in exposing abuse in children's homes - as well as his group giving the PIE the boot early doors - stands up.

Yes that was a badly worded post by me.The article in the main is a good one.My beef with Wolmar is his careerism rather than any ideas he's expressed.

 

[Tankus]

Why not just cut the crap and burn them at the stake ?

 

[SpineyNorman]

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

So is opposition to paedophilia.

 

[Wilf]

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.


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 .

In the spirit of self reflection I'd just slightly row back from this image of my seemingly know all 18 year old self. It was probably nothing more than an ill informed, plain speaking whatthefuckery, hearing there was a group called PIE and thinking 'but isn't that about shagging kids???'. Suspect I only heard about the issue when it was in the papers, with politicians banning PIE or stopping nambla members coming to this country (as I'm at work I won't google the detail/dates on all that). The point made by gay and lesbian groups was certainly in the air (about the conflation with noncery or the nasty stereotype of the 'predatory older man'), along with respectable psychological ideas about the emerging sexualities of young people. What should have been obvious was that entering into those debates still shouldn't have resulted in going within a million miles of PIE. Suppose what's pissed me off, as somebody said earlier, Harman should have at least gone with the Chakrabarty line/apology. Dromey is different, from what has been reported, and doesn't have much to apologise for.

 

[TopCat]

It was pretty clear - you don't seem very keen on gay rights

What gay rights do you think CR does not seem keen on?

 

[belboid]

What gay rights do you think CR does not seem keen on?

any, judging by the way he has refused to answer, again.

 

[Pickman's model]

What gay rights do you think CR does not seem keen on?

don't mind belboid, he croaks like this sometimes.

 

[Pickman's model]

any, judging by the way he has refused to answer, again.

yes because no one has the right to refuse to answer you without you drawing inferences from their silence.

 

[TopCat]

any, judging by the way he has refused to answer, again.

You do like to resort to the smear don't you? Your stock in trade.

 

[belboid]

so i'm not allowed to ask him a question? why do you think he has refused to answer so often? Is it impossible for you to conceive of the possibility that someone might be homophobic? Odd behaviour, but seeing which two idiots its coming from....

 

[TopCat]

so i'm not allowed to ask him a question? why do you think he has refused to answer so often? Is it impossible for you to conceive of the possibility that someone might be homophobic? Odd behaviour, but seeing which two idiots its coming from....

Where is the evidence?

 

[Pickman's model]

Where is the evidence?

belboid doesn't need evidence. when he believes something to be true, it is true.

 

[Wilf]

Back on the nccl, I've read back through the thread and think belboid makes some good points about the timescales. The bits I remember would have been 1980ish, but the discussion would have been a bit less defined around 76, 77.

 

[belboid]

Where is the evidence?

aah, look at you two, isnt it sweet.

Shame neither of you is bright enough to notice that I haven't said CR is anything. I asked him a question - a heinous crime apparently - and he has refused to answer it. Repeatedly. Even whilst answering another part of the same post.

Anyone can draw inferences from such a refusal. Or not. Some people will infer things from why you two are sticking up for him. You two infer things from a single question.

 

[Tankus]

Standard Life, one of Scotland's biggest employers, has warned it could relocate part of its operations to England if Scots vote in favour of independence.

Awkward !

 

[shygirl]

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 remember being very shocked when I first heard about PIE in the early 80's, and more so when one of our lecturers at uni was open about being a paedophile. He had an adult male lover and maintained that he didn't engage in sex with minors, but his sexuality was essentially paedophilic. It was hard to understand why some others in the uni community didn't see this as much of a problem.

 

[phildwyer]

phildwyer from socrates to shakespeare? nearly 400 years since shakespeare died tho ...

Yes. And also yes:

You will have to limit it geographically. It's only in the last decade or so that the world has become the world.

And even in the West, between Socrates and Shakespeare, there were always sexual dissidents. But even with those provisos, mainstream attitudes were based on Platonic-Christian morality for over 2,000 years. Things changed only relatively recently, and change seems to be getting more rapid too.

 

[phildwyer]

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.

Indeed. Who knows what they were doing? Sex without sexuality, as Foucault called it.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes. And also yes:



And even in the West, between Socrates and Shakespeare, there were always sexual dissidents. But even with those provisos, mainstream attitudes were based on Platonic-Christian morality for over 2,000 years. Things changed only relatively recently, and change seems to be getting more rapid too.

could you pls provide some proof that 'mainstream attitudes' in the sixth century kola peninsula or in the first century bc ireland accorded with platonic christian morality?

 

[phildwyer]

could you pls provide some proof that 'mainstream attitudes' in the sixth century kola peninsula or in the first century bc ireland accorded with platonic christian morality?

Like I said, there are many exceptions. I am referring to orthodox, mainstream morality of the Western tradition. That's Platonic-Christian by definition.

 

[Pickman's model]

Like I said, there are many exceptions. I am referring to orthodox, mainstream morality of the Western tradition. That's Platonic-Christian by definition.

no it isn't, it's bollocks

 

[Pickman's model]

aah, look at you two, isnt it sweet.

Shame neither of you is bright enough to notice that I haven't said CR is anything. I asked him a question - a heinous crime apparently - and he has refused to answer it. Repeatedly. Even whilst answering another part of the same post.

Anyone can draw inferences from such a refusal. Or not. Some people will infer things from why you two are sticking up for him. You two infer things from a single question.

i don't know about TopCat's inferences about you but i don't need to work too hard to infer you're a wanker.

 

[belboid]

i don't know about TopCat's inferences about you but i don't need to work too hard to infer you're a wanker.

So you & TC can draw inferences, but I can't? Tad hypocritical.

 

[Pickman's model]

So you & TC can draw inferences, but I can't? Tad hypocritical.

Casually Red hasn't yet you've read quite a bit into his silence. and it's not as tho i haven't seen you posting for many years - my mind was made up already 9 years ago.

 

[redcogs]

Capitalism distorts human sexuality - we can't know what truly human sexuality looks like until the competative system is replaced, and the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.

Just thought that i'd come over all marxist to lighten the thread a little. Not sure why.

 

[belboid]

Casually Red hasn't yet you've read quite a bit into his silence. and it's not as tho i haven't seen you posting for many years - my mind was made up already 9 years ago.

ie you are basing your comments upon pre-existing personal dislikes rather than on their own merit. How sad of you. Hey ho.

 

[Pickman's model]

ie you are basing your comments upon pre-existing personal dislikes rather than on their own merit. How sad of you. Hey ho.

the difference is i am basing my views on what you have said. and you have said you are basing your views on Casually Red's silence. for the record, have you at any time espoused the belief that courts drawing an inference from someone's silence was wrong?

 

[belboid]

Oh do fuck off you hypocritical cunt, this isn't a court of law. Casually stupid merrily answers that he doesn't want to ever prioritise gay rights and he refuses to be drawn on whether he supports gay rights generally. You can draw any inference you want, or not, who cares? You're a one trick pony and you're not even very good at that trick. Stick to being a pointless pedant. You're only pisspoor at that.