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.

what starlady said

Starlady, we're talking about things that happened nearly 40 years ago. Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey won't have access to any records from that time - why should they? It's more than 30 years since they left those jobs. Frankly, I'd be surprised if Liberty (current name of NCCL) has that kind of detailed archive available. How can they give a complete account of who said what to whom and why? I don't think HH has made a good job of responding to this story but let's not conflate the Islington case with the NCCL/PIE case. They are very different.

You may have a point there Mimsy, but as I understand, the Daily Mail built this story using the NCCL/ Liberty archives. If they have kept those documents, they should have other documents which will potentially support HH.

You are right they are very different stories - except for the fact the Islington/ Hodge story was purposefully ignored by people on the left because it was printed by the Evening Standard.

This is why I started this thread. I am against kneejerk responses either way.

"In 1976, with Jack Dromey on its executive (he served from 1970-79), the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’.

‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage,’ it read. ‘The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

Is this a statement made by the NCCL at the time?

Blu - I think we must be a similar age. I have similar memories, especially your comment about the gender divide on these issues.
I was associated with a leftie organisation that PIE approached - and, yes, many of the men argued in favour of allowing the association, while all of the women said no,
It's experiences such as that that have given me a fairly jaded view about accusations of censorship.
I'm pissed off with the lack of historical context in this story. It is a nasty attack on HHS and the NCCL.
Context is all. I think the NCCL made a wrong cll but politics is a developing thing and I think an important part of the story is the rise of feminism and how it forced changes in the discourse of the left. Especially in the deepening of an understanding of sexuality , power and abuse.
PIE would not be welcome in Liberty now - and I think that has a lot to do with feminism.

Is this a statement made by the NCCL at the time?

It may well be, but it seems it was made years before HH joined the NCCL.

Yes, that has nothing to do with HH.

I am old enough to remember this at the time - and yes, feminists challenged the notion that personal sexual freedom should be considered some sacred right. Our current understanding of abuse, power and patriarchy simply was not commonly accepted in the 70's. Events that happened then can only be understood in that light.

Anyone listening to PM on Radio 4?

I have been waiting for coverage on this story and haven't heard it unless I missed it.

The lack of coverage is a conspiracy.

Ah, now the BBC are finally covering this story at 5.47 (47 minutes after the news programme started).

This is in today's Daily Mail

"The BBC was accused yesterday of keeping the growing paedophilia scandal from the airwaves in order to protect the Labour Party.

Until yesterday afternoon, the corporation had refused to report that three Labour figures had leading positions in a human rights group that backed the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.

The story has been on the Mail’s front page three times but the BBC cut all reference to it from its press reviews yesterday."

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2567110/BBCs-censorship-paedophilia-scandal-reveals-left-wing-bias-Corporation-accused-refusing-report-story-protect-Labour-party.html

BBC new report finished at 5.50 (about 3 minutes in total).

The shortness of the coverage is a conspiracy.

'The shortness of the coverage is a conspiracy.'

You may be right, I don't know.

But I think it shows how important they think it is. Sky News has been giving it lots of airtime. I don't watch BBC News 24. Have they been giving it a lot of coverage?

It was covered on Radio 5 this morning.

Thanks, Feenie, I would expect that because Radio 5 live is less highbrow than Radio 4.

I only listen to Radio 4 and watch Newsnight for BBC news, otherwise I watch Sky News and Channel 4 News

When I say Radio 5 is less highbrow, i mean it appeals to a wider audience and therefore discusses what people are talking about.

Just watched BBC 6 o'clock news to see what they say.

Hats off to the BBC, it was a very good report. It showed protestors scuffling and protesting against PIE in the 1970s, which shows that all this stuff about the 1970s being different to now among the general public is rubbish.

It also mentioned that in 1976, the NCCL campaigned for the age of consent to be lowered to 14.

The silly woman hasnt done herself any favours with the interview just shown on BBC.

At least they've shown how upset normal people were by the Paedophile information Exchange at the time so we dont have to listen to History being re written on how liberal everyone was back in the 70's and it was perfectly acceptable to have groups like this being given a platform under the banner of libertarianism

I'm generally a fully paid-up Daily Mail hater, but if this story surfaced in thee left-wing press and concerned prominent Tories, would some of the people on this thread still be so interested in 'context'? The current leadership of Liberty have at least been very, very clear in expressing their horror and disgust - not something I've heard yet from Harman.

Channel 4 News gave it very little coverage at all. They are left-liberal leaning too so maybe it shouldn't have surprised me, but hats off to the BBC they did better than Channel 4 and Laura Kuensberg was excellent on Newsnight last night when she interviewed Harman.

"we're talking about things that happened nearly 40 years ago"

Hasn't stopped a bunch of other witch hunts recently, on probably shakier ground.

"but if this story surfaced in thee left-wing press and concerned prominent Tories, would some of the people on this thread still be so interested in 'context'?"

Oh of course they would

Imagine if it was deputy leader of UKIP. They'd all be tripping over themselves rushing to stick the knife in.

Exactly, Viviennemary, they'd be queueing up and there would have been no silence for 3 whole days while the Mail published it on its front page everyday.