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

[starlady]

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

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman
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.

I could be wrong but ISTR some suggestions a gay rights organisation and a high profile gay rights campaigner may have been loosely associated with them too (I had assumed that, and the harman link were total bollocks), if any of it is true at all, that might explain it largely being on the media down low. I mean how would you approach reporting that? :/

You are not alone OP, I find the whole thing including the deafening silence very disturbing too.

YANBU. I am bothered, really bothered by this.

Well if it is true (and I assumed it was shit to slur people at the time tbh) the whole story had harman, tatchell, stonewall and many of the gay marriage types on a bif list of people associated with and/or lobbying for the paedophile information exchange.

If the Harman bit is true, there's no reason why the rest can't be, and it's fairly easy to understand how some the media and the government might feel pretty bloody unenthusiastic about posting that on every billboard.

. It has been mentioned on MN before, last year, I think.

I do not know why it arouses so little interest.

I was talking to a pal who's a seasoned news reporter, and she's flummoxed too by the silence. We were wondering if it's a legal thing that I have missed? The only people talking about it are fascist nutters. The bit about the pornography being returned to paedophiles to stop censorship is particularly vile. At least shami from liberty has been completely clear in her condemnation

I wasn't aware of it and agree it deserves more attention....

Also I guess, it gives paedophiles a defence. That may be something to do with the silence.

Paedophiles believed they could get away with it as others, respectable MPs and campaigners, around them thought it was ok. There was shocking stuff going on in kids homes at the time.

I do think its a bit worrying that people don't want to question this more, presumably because they are afraid of being seen as right wing, or reactionary. We need to question our law makers attitudes, I don't want someone representing me who is so cynical they will 'get into bed' with people who have such reprehensible aims.

I have been wondering this since it first surfaced last year.

Disturbing.

Yanbu

Two of the three of them have clarified (via spokespeople) that they were opposed to the PIE back in the 70s.

I don't know enough about how powerful they were on the NCCL then, would be interested if anyone else did.

They were senior figures in the National Council for Civil Liberties at the time: PIE was allowed (What where they thinking? I can only speculate that as the gay age of consent was 21 at the time there was some notion that there was an equality agenda to it, as PIE was part of the Gay Liberation Front at the time) to join as an affiliate organisation. This is non-news: the story has been out for decades. A couple of Harman's cases as a lawyer for the NCCL were part of my studies for my law finals twenty years ago, and the NCCL - called Liberty these days - took and takes on cases for all kinds of unsavoury characters. Convicts, mostly.

I am not shocked by this as I read it when all the JS came out. There was a thread on here linking to a David Icke thread at the time. I read all sorts on there that made my hair curl and a lot of it has been published in the normal press since.

Eh, I read most of it in - memory may play me false here - Scallywag twenty years ago. And, of course, around the same time Saville was getting regular invites to Chequers and Downing St.

Yes doctrines but it would be good to see some evidence of these 3 s opposition. Or failing that, an apology or a more detailed explanation of why they appeared to support pie. Or if it's complete daily mail lies, they should sue.

I don't know why there isn't more interest these are clearly sick minded people who are trying to bury this.
Very disturbing

kisses perhaps it shows how much attitudes have changed in 20 years

I'm struggling to understand this. Can someone explain/summarise in simple terms, please?

YANBU - isn't there a link to Islington care home abuse too?

Harrier harman Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey supported a civil right group for paedophiles bumpotato, there's new evidence this week of their support. Read the link

I

Too much the left's ideology is simply to back whatever goes against established morality, tradition etc. Even when it's completely evil as this is. HArman and Hewitt have always been despicable people as far saks

The actual facts are that a splinter of the Gay Liberation Front, the Paedophile Information Exchange, applied for and received affiliate status with the National Council for Civil Liberties, of which the three named individuals were employees. What that status entailed, I've no idea. It didn't last long: PIE was disaffiliated in the early 80s.

Two that I know of were lawyers for the organisation, pushing civil liberties cases through the courts (Harriet Harman's biggest contributions were on prisoners' rights and the use of Contempt of Court laws to suppress publication of information about abusive practises by the government: that was the context in which I had to study her work).

Haven't read the Mail piece, unlikely to, but I doubt that anything beyond the basic facts of 'these people, who would later go on to be senior Labour figures, were employees of an organisation that did something incredibly stupid thirty years ago' is more than cherry-picked out-of-context quotes and innuendo just this side of libel.

Curious that it comes out as a front page piece (saw it on a newsstand, as it happens) just as we're coming up to the one year mark before there has to be a general election: it's very old news, after all.

SauceForTheGander, that was Margaret Hodge, whose conduct was utterly fucking indefensible. She was a councillor at Islington at the time.

kisses this is why it's been rehashed according to Greenslade

"More sensationally, it (the mail) also reproduced a document purportedly showing that the NCCL lobbied for the age of sexual consent to be reduced to 10 and urged that incest be legalised."

Harman was the lawyer who lobbied for this wasn't she? You may be right they are trying to skewer labour. I will still vote labour. But if any of these 3 were my MPs, I think I would have to rethink. Anyway I'm off to bed. Might bump in the morn to see if anyone else cam shed any light on the almost deafening silence on this one

well i will link to the mail
here