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.

Imagine if a political party was affiiated to an organisation like PIE. What do you think would happen? Would people want to represent that party?

I think promoting a culture of misogyny for 40+ years is on a par with paedophila actually. It certainly helped create a culture where those men in Rochdale and other places thought they could get away with it because the girls were even seen by the authorities as "making a lifestyle choice".

HH has made a statement; www.harrietharman.org/nccl-statement---24022014

Political parties are affiliated to all manner of disreputable people, claig. Anyone who gives them a stack of cash can buy influence and a position in the House of Lords.

'Political parties are affiliated to all manner of disreputable people'

Yes that is a good point, but I don't know of any who would be affiliated or connected in any sense to a paedophile campaigning group. They all draw the line at that.

I fear that what some politicians draw the line at publicly and what they draw the line at privately are separated by a large hypocritical gap.

Interesting that not one Politician or senior member of the Judiciary, Law, Health& social care and Education has been prosecuted whereas a parade of has been celebrities have.

Amazing that.

I ignored this until it came up on the news last night. Read her statement and you can see that it is all indeed a disgusting smear, the Mail don't like successful female politicians, especially not Labour ones.

the NCCL were idealistic and let anyone be their affiliates - HH said that, they didn't check, anyone who paid could be affiliated. PIE exploited this naivety. The NCCL noticed eventually, shed the student ideals and got real.

Agree Mignonette

If the DM care so much about paedophila, why didn't they report the affiliation of the NCCL sometime between 1978 and 2014? Because this is the run up to an election, that's why. It's going to be an extremely foul campaign.

Interesting that not one Politician or senior member of the Judiciary, Law, Health & social care and Education has been prosecuted whereas a parade of has been celebrities have

Exactly. At some point there will be a major donor to a political party who is prosecuted, and politicians will have known about and covered up their activities. Only a matter of time.

Especially with the Leveson business still in the air.

My comment was responding to the prediction of the foul campaign.

If the DM cared so much about paedophilia, why didn't it do something about the well established rumours about Jimmy Saville that had been around for many years before his eventual disgrace?

Claig- please would you explain what you think "affiliated to the NCCL" means?

I don't know what the official definition of affiliated means. That is why I am reading the Daily Mail to find out what it means.

ha ha ha ha ha

Daily Poitics on BBC 2 now. They will be discussing this. I hope they have someone from the Daily Mail on because there seems to be no one else who even questions it all.

You may all find this petition of some use in the whole child-protection scheme of things.

I knew the Mail was given to publishing COPINE Level 1 indecent images, I'd not been aware they were doing the salacious commentary on the kids - in one example, EIGHT YEARS OLD - as well.

If the Daily Mail worries so much about paedophilia why does it keep printing pictures of 14 year old girls and younger and commenting on their physique?!

Was there really such disgust for paedophilia in the '70's and '80's?

I remember being shocked about the Mandy Smith and Bill Wyman story in the 1980's. And yet nobody else seemed to bat an eyelid. They were all over the papers.

So if you don't know what it means, why are you suggesting that it means "supporting"?

Well done Owen Jones. He's exactly the right person to take on the DM.

Julie Bindel on Daily Politics now. Excellent. She is not mincing her words and she is speaking sense.

I don't think that it's no one being bothered, I think it's people seeing that it's really a random smear thing dreamed up by the Mail to be dickheads- it's pretty clear that Harman at least had no idea about this having happened and is blameless, and probably that the civil liberties group also didn't know what the organisation even was. I don't know what it was either, which no one seems to be explaining- if it was about providing counselling and treatment for paedophiles then I don't see the problem, or if it was for preventing harassment of people who were accused of paedophilia but it was unproven. It's a bt stupid to say paedophiles shouldn't have rights- everyone has rights, murderers, rapists etc still have the basic human right accorded to all humans, they can only have rights curtailed in accordance with the law and for protection of others (i.e. being prevented from taking jobs involving contact with children, or kept in prison if found to be a risk, etc).

I am actually just listening to something lowbrow on the radio about it and the mail are bitching that they wanted to lower the age of consent to 14. The same mail who printed pictures of Emma Watson etc with dodgy captions about their age and appearance. If making a legal argument for lowering the age of consent is a symptom of paedophilia, we'd be banning anyone who'd ever been to Holland, Spain etc from politics, as the ages of consent there are lower than in the UK.