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.

You would think that this would mean the end of Harriet Harman as a public figure. In any "traditional" Labour seat she would be a massive liability. Sadly her seat is not a traditional Labour seat.

I don't think this issue was predominantly a left wing thing, quite the opposite. There was general acceptance among establishment figures that consensual homosexual behaviour as well as sexual abuse was common in boarding schools:

books.google.ca/books?id=KtwWwEHRf6sC&pg=PA150&lpg=PA150&dq=%22james+robertson+justice%22++%22must+be+seen+to+be+done%22&source=bl&ots=XtOVpv8IJK&sig=bCYTEdgHhEX_MpAdXgibrKUlGk8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OwMNU_XLJ8jqoATr2ILwCg&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22james%20robertson%20justice%22%20%20%22must%20be%20seen%20to%20be%20done%22&f=false

I wouldn't be surprised if that is part of the reason for silence from all fronts.

Has anybody mentioned the arrest of the newsreader Julia Somerville in 1995 after her partner took innocent photos of the children taken in the bath to be developed at the local Boots?

As Zoe Williams says today in the Guardian-

The document Harman signed that apparently incriminates her, calling for images of naked children to be proven harmful before they were criminal? Judge that against the fact that a woman breastfeeding a toddler, if she took a picture and sent it to be developed at Boots, might be visited by the police (this happened to someone I know)

Here is that link

Mignonette - thanks for that. I had been desperately trying to remember the name of the newsreader but couldn't bring it to mind. That is presumably exactly the kind of case Harman was trying to prevent.

Of course the Mail would be the first to scream and shout at the idea that innocent parents could be arrested for taking innocent pictures of their naked children.

@sallymanda

"I actually don't believe for one second that sex with children was open to rational debate in the way that sex before marriage, cohabitation, gay sex or pornography was.

The significant difference, of course, is that the above were at least between consenting adults.

Why are people making out that people in the 1970s were idiots or something? Idiots that didn't know the difference between the actions of consenting adults and children?"

Then I take it you have never read Lolita. I take it it is widely banned and excoriated and one cannot get hold of a copy anywhere. I take it that sex with under-age groupies never happened in the 70s (or later) or if it did those who took part were AT THE TIME regarded as child abusers rather than lucky? (eg John Peel never existed and was locked up not envied or idolised?)

Actually, the reality is that the definition of "child" was far less clear cut than it is now - many (most?) in the 70s would have assumed that a 14 or 15 year old who willingly engaged in sex with older men was old enough to make her own decisions on the matter, rather than a victim. (This is why we have had so many historic child sex scandals coming to light recently - precisely because police and social services were happy to regard it as not a crime because the girls were seen as "wanting it" and basically old enough for it not to be an issue. It is only very, very recently - within the last few years - that attitudes have changed, hence the spate of recent prosecutions going back a long time.)

It is also geographically determined - there are still now many parts of the world where sex and marriage with children is legal - however distasteful we find it. And it is not helpful to castigate everyone in say, Spain, where the age of consent is 13, as "idiots". Acc to Wiki, "The age of consent is 13 in Spain. It is 14 in Albania, Austria, Bulgaria, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Estonia, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Liechtenstein, Macedonia, Montenegro, Portugal, San Marino and Serbia. It is 15 in Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, the Faroe Islands, France, Greece, Iceland, Monaco, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden." Are they all "idiots" too?

I personally believe that we have it right in the UK now - in viewing sex below 16 as illegal and those under that age as being unable to give consent.

BUT I am also aware that views on this have changed relatively recently and it is historically incorrect to ascribe them to the 70s.

I remember the press about that vividly because I had just had my last child and something which appeared to defy credulity was suddenly worrying real.

That is not to say those attitudes were fine, by the way. But it is not helpful in any way to suggest that we should lock up - or smear - anyone who considered or considers lowering the age of consent, or was prepared to offer free speech to those considering it, for example - or we'd be locking up most of Europe while we were at it.

Or maybe you regard that as reasonable?

Following in from Tryings post, can I just point out that Lolita was 12 in Nabokov's novel. Western culture has turned her into a 14 year old temptress, via Kubrik, but in the book, revered in the literary canon, she is 12. Slight digression, but it is a real bug bear of mine.

Anyway, it is plainly rampant nonsense to claim Harman supports or condones peadophilia, she has spent much of her political career campaigning for women & children's rights. This is so blatantly a Daily Mail smear campaign 'Ed Miliband's father hated Britain' 'Harriet Harman likes peadophiles'. Does anyone really, truly believe that?

I can see no evidence that Harman herself had any interest whatsoever in lowering the age of consent or having sex with children. It is a clear attempt to smear her by association.

Yet the Mail continues to publish endless salacious shots of under-age children - often next to the articles reporting on the latest child sex scandal (also usually reported salciously, IMO).

I know who I think has dodgy attitudes about child sex and it's not Harman.

ithaka - thanks.

Well, even more so. Yet we can all read it - it's not banned and in fact is part of the literary canon.

I posted this in the other Harman thread that's running but the Mail keep insinuating that she signed a NCCL submission calling for child porn to be legalised if it didn't harm the child. A damming accusation.

Rather than provide a text version of the document - which would be easily googleable - the Mail have a picture of the text, Having read it, I'm not surprised.

Harman's submission argues that the draft legislation on child porn is so loose as to be pointless, and also risk absurd prosecutions (of sex education material for example, or even non-sexual offensive material), and actually suggests alternative language to tighten it up to ensure prosecutions are successful and properly brought. It notes that the last time Parliament tried to define 'indecency' it failed, and therefore suggests a definition.

Having read the contentious quote about harm, in the context of the 4-page letter it clearly reads as 'use our amendment in the Bill and this will guarantee that prosecutions will be restricted to cases where a child is harmed" ie in child porn cases, not health or education material.

The actual facts don't match the Mail insinuation that Harman supports child porn in certain circumstances

But don't take my word for it. If you want to read it for yourself, Harman's submission is in the pictures in this article

So naked pictures of a child where the child is not harmed would be none prosecutable? That doesn't seem right to me. It would make prosecution of child porn almost impossible.

So naked pictures of a child where the child is not harmed would be none prosecutable?

Well, yes. I've got a pregnancy and baby manual with tons of pictures of naked children in it. Some of the instruction material and pictures of how to change a newborn's nappy (esp. how to ensure a girl is properly cleaned) is quite explicit. But it's not child porn. The point of the NCCL submission was that the law as proposed would have criminalised health and education material like that, and needed to be tighened to only cover child porn.

None of us can legislate against a person attracted to children who uses a Mothercare catalogue as masturbatory material -that is the sad truth of it.

Surely the point here is the intention. The DM is keen to paint HH is being supportive of a paedophile organisation. She was arguing for a definition of child porn but was suggesting a definition that wasn't watertight. These things are vastly different.

"She was arguing for a definition of child porn but was suggesting a definition that wasn't watertight"

But did mean that you wouldn't be prosecuted for taking pictures of your own children in the bath.....

Haven't read this thread so don't know what the consensus is but I think this story's a load of shite. A tiny group wiggled its way in with a thousand other groups for a short period of time. What did it gain? Nothing.

Just another example of newspapers trying to cause a splash and boost sales.

Andrew Pierce floundered on today's 'Daily Politics' attempting to defend his paper's attack on HH. Totally unconvincing - maybe because he's not that convinced?

I'll hazard a guess. Did he say that the Daily Mail shouldn't have to justify its attack and shouldn't have to answer for its own behaviour because it's a family newspaper?

nauticant His performance was poor, but even he isn't draft enough to throw that one of for AN to maul. Wish he had though, the blood splatter would have been spectacular.

of = out

Donna, I have to take issue with this: Sadly her seat is not a traditional Labour seat. What's a traditional Labour seat? Peckham is a very poor area (mostly) and the London Borough of Southwark which I think covers her entire constituency is one of the poorest areas in Britain, even though it contains Dulwich and a few other very affluent pockets as well as the thriving South Bank. Camberwell and Peckham is one of the safest Labour seats in the country.

Just to clarify, Dulwich is in the neighbouring constituency which is also a safe Labour seat for Tessa Jowell.

Then I take it you have never read Lolita. I take it is widely banned and excoriated and one cannot get hold of a copy anywhere

I've read Lolita and didn't find it sympathetic to paedophilia at all. The abuser (Humbert Humbert) comes across as repulsive from start to finish, despite his self-justifying narration.