Advanced search

To wonder why no one seems bothered by links to labour MPs + paedophile rights organisation?

(955 Posts)
starlady Thu 20-Feb-14 22:54:27

The Mail has published new claims about Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt supporting The paedophile information exchange. Thought it was a rehash of an old story, but I've looked at the evidence published, and it looks as if harriet etc do have some explaining to do. I won't link to the Mail, but the Guardian gives a more nuanced point of view here
What I'm finding puzzling is twitter is not bothered! And I haven't seen anything on mumsnet. Isn't anyone bothered? No wonder jimmy Saville et al got away with their actions. I am a labour voter myself, so I'm not trying to be partisan and stir up trouble, but the silence on this disturbs me.

NigellasDealer Fri 21-Feb-14 00:40:24

well i will link to the mail

wouldbemedic Fri 21-Feb-14 00:54:40

I COMPLETELY AGREE!! Why is this not front page news??

Shouldhavedoneitsooner Fri 21-Feb-14 01:47:54

It's not just a labour problem. It's a cross party problem. Thatcher's cabinet was involved in massive cover ups. We should be standing up and saying it doesn't matter what party you are the widespread abuse of children is abhorrent. Read up about it here :

It certainly seems the press are too scared to stand up to the powers that be !

Terrortree Fri 21-Feb-14 02:09:22

Who was the woman MP that was in charge of Children's Services back in the day - a body which ran children's homes (amongst other things). Child sexual abuse was widespread but she put a lid on it.

Was it HH or another woman? This has been bugging me for a while. I think the scandal was published circa 90s but related to a period of time possibly in the 70s but could be the 80s.

Please tell me it wasn't HH.

I detest the woman, but I would hate to think it is the same woman.

Terrortree Fri 21-Feb-14 02:13:47

Apologies, I've just found it via Google - it was Margaret Hodge.

Another sub-woman.

NigellasDealer Fri 21-Feb-14 02:14:55

link here terrortree

Terrortree Fri 21-Feb-14 02:17:35

Thanks Nigella - I'd just found it.

Both of them are dispicable.

pamish Fri 21-Feb-14 02:36:47

I remember it well. 1978? I wrote a long piece for Spare Rib about the CAPM trial which meant a fair bit of digging and reading all their stuff. But using this now to smear Harman is a pretty big stretch. The libertarian grouping was and is anti-censorship and they would have been hard pressed to resist going along with the PIE arguments about censorship. IIRC PIE maintained that they only wanted to talk about it, not actually do it, so NCCL would have been obliged to support them. The very existence of paedophiles was a novel concept.

Surely this is not the promised revelation about a senior politician tied up with Savile that has been known about and is about to hit the fan? Is this really it?

My main point was that the PIE lot had very cleverly turned things around by saying it was about children's rights not theirs, which is how the libertarians and gay rights people got dragged in. We were still making stuff up as we went along, remember - re for example our right to a self defined sexuality. NCCL daily bread was a lot about censorship and anti-state. Disentangling the contradictions about conflicts of rights was too sophisticated for Harman et al. Expecting bourgeois het couples to engage with the minutiae of feminist politics, is a bit optimistic, as long as they were seen to be doing the 'radical' thing. Even supporting gays was dangerous in those days to the mainstream, and they wanted to locate NCCL outside the mainstream but in it too.

meditrina Fri 21-Feb-14 03:48:33

I am amazed that their role in supporting the reduction (leading to abolition) of age of consent is not better remembered.

I am old enough to remember the days when PIE existed. It did not have widespread support, nor was it an organisation generally considered acceptable. They weren't following general public opinion in supporting this. It was deliberate choice, and one I think relevant to their judgement.

Thatcher did not support sex with children or PIE. And I cannot think of any Tories who supported it publicly either.

This isn't "smear" btw. It's a straightforward explanation of how particular individuals exercised their judgement and the level of support they chose to give the paedophiles in PIE and their campaign for easier access to children. There was no "clever" argumentation by PIE, and nothing that convinced the public. The sophistry only comes now, when people seek to distance themselves from their earlier moral choices in their public actions.

Shouldhavedoneitsooner Fri 21-Feb-14 04:18:23

The Tories might not have supported publically but they were complicit. John whittingdale's half brother Charles Napier, a convicted paedophile, was secretary of the PIE and boasted he could get child pornography sent in diplomatic bags.

Leon Brittan was presented witha dossier of evidence but refused to ban the PIE.

Perhaps because he was involved in his own scandals.
His name comes up repeatedly in the elm guest house enquiry. Google them together to see.

It seems like all political parties have a lot to be ashamed of.

meditrina Fri 21-Feb-14 04:40:30

Not banning PIE (and I agree it would have been better if it had been) is far from campaigning in its support.

PIE withered and closed because of public revulsion. Another factor to remember when considering the stance of its active and campaigning supporters. The argument wasn't complicated. Nor compelling. Nor morally sound. That is why the judgement of age of consent abolitionists will never be rated favourably.

Then as well as now.

meditrina Fri 21-Feb-14 04:48:57

BTW, are actions of siblings of politicians always held as reliable indicators of the stance of the party of that MP? Or indeed are siblings ever responsible for the actions of crimes of the others in their family (just read an interesting bit of Iycke which holds that they are, and would indeed make an interesting though very confused picture of what political parties are about if universally applied).

Charles Napier might have had access to diplomatic bags because of his own employment at the British Council. Nothing to do with any of his family.

FloraFox Fri 21-Feb-14 06:42:07

I think there are important questions to be answered by the people involved and they will come out of this better if they honestly explain what their motivations were. If they seem to be prevaricating, all you can do is think the worst.

There are a couple of important lessons from this disclosure, which has been bubbling under for a long time.

Firstly, I think we can't assume that all liberalisations are a good thing. Most people agree that society is more progressive for sexism, racism and homophobia than 20 years ago but we are clearly less accepting of paedophilia. That's a good thing but "progressive liberalisation" is not a good thing in and of itself.

Secondly, I think this demonstrates that liberalism / libertarianism mostly benefits people who have power. This is framed around civil liberties and rights but really it is a false equality between people with power (adult men) and people with no power (children).

We should strive for equality but we need to be very wary of any politics that are based on assumption that we are all currently equal. There are a few issues where this is currently relevant including focussing on the autonomy of the most vulnerable women in society and their "right" to be in prostitution. It's a deeply regressive and power focused dynamic. Not progressive in any way.

bluedays Fri 21-Feb-14 07:25:45

I'm going to have to choose my words carefully here:

Disclaimer: I don't think that homosexual men are any more likely to be child abusers then heterosexual men. Not at all.

But, having learnt that PIE was an offshoot of the gay liberation front, I can no longer knee-jerk call somebody who makes the connection, 'homophobe'.

To be truthful, I can't blame them for making that connection if this is the stuff that was doing the rounds 40-odd years ago.

A lesson for us all in trying to see where an old person's coming from and not automatically shout, 'bigot'.

Yes, they the connection may be false, but I can't altogether blame them for making the connection, either.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch Fri 21-Feb-14 07:25:45

Good post, Flora.

VulvaBeaker Fri 21-Feb-14 08:39:23

@bluedays - and I think there's an element of that to why people don't report things, there is far too much to this that could hit gay rights hard. I doubt it could do much good for it to arise that the government's most recent moral crusade was at the bidding of a bunch of monsters, because some will confuse those few with homosexuals more generally - so it becomes a matter of editorial responsibility.

Further the personal involvement of MPs in child sex abuse seems to have approached commonplace over the last few decades, plenty of vested interests there I suspect.

I also think it's a good example of treating right and wrong as equal, that even here doing things which are actually evil becomes doing something "stupid".

bluedays Fri 21-Feb-14 08:54:30

VulvaBeaker, You've hit the nail on the head. It would be embarrassing for the government. My thoughts are the same as yours.

It's almost as if homosexuality is now seen as an untouchable religion for some, when the truth is that some (please note emphasis) homosexual men are paedophiles-just as some heterosexual men are.

Why are human beings so keen too embrace homosexual men as being ALL good these days? Is it guilt from the mistreatment from the past? Is it that homosexual relationships are carrying the torch for romance now that marriage is failing amongst heterosexuals? It it because when people stop believing in god they'll believe in anything? Is it simply cool for a fuddy-duddy old tory party to be seen as a rainbow-flying flag bearer?

I don't want homosexuality being seen as an evil in itself ever again, but I don't want to be in the position where homosexual men can never be seen as doing no wrong, either. At the moment, I think society is veering towards the latter.

starlady Fri 21-Feb-14 09:07:04

Shouldhave and others who argued that Tories have dirt on them and some have abused children - that would hardly surprise me.

But this is about three people who AREN'T paedophiles (despite what some right wing nutters are implying), but they jumped on a bandwagon to advance their own careers. That's what I am uncomfortable with. This is the same kind of attitude which allowed the Rochdale rapes continue. People who wanted to be seen as liberal and openminded, but were happy to let vulnerable people suffer.

Children's rights FFS. What about the right to develop without being molested?

Onesleeptillwembley Fri 21-Feb-14 09:11:38

This hands been in the public domain for a few years. The only people railing against it that I could see were on the David Icke forum. Scary how it's even now being downplayed it makes me wonder why and by whom.

hackmum Fri 21-Feb-14 09:20:24

I think there's something interesting going on here. I assume the reason the Tories aren't making capital out of this is, as others have pointed out, they have their own skeletons in the cupboard. I also assume this is why massive media attention has been paid to the wrongdoings of the BBC in protecting Savile et al, but very little to the fact that Savile was allowed into children's homes, hospitals, Broadmoor etc - to the extent that he was appointed to a taskforce overseeing Broadmoor. Why has there been no public inquiry into why this was allowed to happen?

So my view is that there's a grand cover-up going on in which neither of the major political parties wants to expose the wrongdoings of the other, because they know that they're not untarnished themselves. It's a shame our fearless press haven't pursued this further but I guess they've been busy attacking the BBC.

An odd piece in the Mail today in which Quentin Letts castigates the BBC for ignoring the Harman/Hewitt revelations and says they'd have been all over them if Tory MPs had been involved - but surely he must know that Tory MPs were involved?

VulvaBeaker Fri 21-Feb-14 10:07:54

Personally, I think anyone who would support, even tacitly, others lobbying for their right to have sex with children to "advance their career" is actually worse in some ways.

I mean that's selling your soul to the devil, there isn't even any perverse compulsion driving you, it's a conscious and cold decision for your personal power.

I cannot see any earthly use for such a human being.

SauceForTheGander Fri 21-Feb-14 10:10:31

hackmum that's a very interesting post.

When you consider what governments have apologised for retrospectively it's very odd that the Currie / Thatcher decision to give Savile run of Broadmoor hasn't been officially investigated.

After Blair's comment "a Hutton style inquiry" - have we lost faith in inquiries now anyway?

Elderberri Fri 21-Feb-14 10:20:14

Is not Harriet harman a guest blogger on this site?

VulvaBeaker Fri 21-Feb-14 10:25:08

Well an extremely high ranking MP used to visit one of Saville's abuse homes for no reason anyone has been able to explain, then go off and take part in a sailing competition for a few days around the local sea.

At the same time, children from the home used to go missing who are now believed to have been murdered and never found.

The same MP was described as having "certain tastes" by Christine Keeler in one of her books.

On a basis that is less well documented fact so feel free to ignore what I can't prove (but which may prove a coincidence of interest), I am led to believe that he was one of numerous MPs at the time who visited care homes where abuse was ongoing in unofficial, private visits around the UK and Ireland with the kind of frequency some people visit fast food chains.

There are also other questions, like why the justice system is so very lenient towards child abusers so often, why various government agencies are so keen to sweep under the carpet active child rape rings that abuse thousands of children, and how very keen the CPS et al are to publicly prosecute high profile persons outside politics, in cases where no physical crime can be proven and no conviction can be secured given remotely competent legal representation.

nennypops Fri 21-Feb-14 10:31:32

I agree the Conservatives are keeping quiet because of their own skeletons. After all, Thatcher regularly invited Savile to Chequers and insisted on him being given a knighthood against the advice of her civil servants, who must have told her precisely why they were advising against it.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now