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.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26335569

This summarises the issues conveniently. Basically Harman, Hewitt and Dromey all held significant positions within the NCCL while the Paedophile Information Exchange was an affiliate. The BBC also states that PIE's founder made a speech at the NCCL's spring conference in 1977 while Dromey and Hewitt (but not Harman) were in office. Hewitt actually comes off worst, in that she was the NCCL's general secretary when PIE affiliated to it. So they do all have questions to answer, and I say that as a Labour voter. Of course the Daily Mail is pursuing its own agenda, but what paper doesn't? The fact that the Guardian has a massive axe to grind against all things right-wing doesn't necessarily invalidate every story it ever publishes.

Harriet joined the NCCL in 1978.
Patricia Hewitt was General Secretary of the NCCL from 1974-1983.
Jack Dromey was on the executive from 1970-1979.
PIE gained affiliate status in 1975.

What was the process for a group to gain affiliate status to the NCCL and who was responsible for approving it?

Catkins that is not correct. The reason why they have a picture of the text rather than a googleable version is because the original text was a type written document and they have reproduced the original. I suspect if it was the other way around you would be complaining that they had not reproduced the original.

To say that it suggests a 'tightening up' is an absolute lie. It is very clear in that document that the legislation as it stood contained measures which should have protected those who were using such material for educational purposes. As it stood using it for educational purposes was a defence from prosecution and if it could be proven would mean you would not be convicted.

The proving a child was harmed amendment would not have simply ruled out prosecution for people using it for innocent purposes, it would have provided a defence for those who were using it for sexual purposes. I think you know that full well, it was a weakening of legislation rather than a tightening up.

The same document also called for sentences for possession of child porn to be reduced NCCL perceived this as a lesser offence.

The whole tone of the document makes it clear that it is sympathetic towards paedophiles.

I suspect if it was the other way around you would be complaining that they had not reproduced the original.

Well you suspect wrong. I thought it highly suspcious that they buried it in a non-googleable format, especially as it started "the NCCL deplores the explotation of children". If they are making such a big deal of it, both formats should be accessible.

To say that it suggests a 'tightening up' is an absolute lie.

Paragraph 3 starts by stating the drafting is loose and then goes on for nearly two pages with suggested alternatives

It is very clear in that document that the legislation as it stood contained measures which should have protected those who were using such material for educational purposes

If they could prove the material wasn't for indecent purposes. Reverse burden of proof

The proving a child was harmed amendment would not have simply ruled out prosecution for people using it for innocent purposes, it would have provided a defence for those who were using it for sexual purposes. I think you know that full well, it was a weakening of legislation rather than a tightening up.

This is the bit at the end of S4, plus S5 of the submission? Reversing the burden of proof is not acceptable in any circumstance, for any crime and contrary to how English law operates. It's only a weakening of legislation if you think 'prove this is not indecent' is an acceptable starting point rather than 'the prosecution has to prove this is indecent'.

The same document also called for sentences for possession of child porn to be reduced NCCL perceived this as a lesser offence.

S8 at the very end suggests that posession of child porn should have a lower sentence than production of child porn - the draft Bill seems to have set both at the same level. You can disagree with this, but I think that's how it works with the current law.

The whole tone of the document makes it clear that it is sympathetic towards paedophiles.

Well I would disagree and as mentioned above the document is here should anyone want to wade through.

I note thought that the Mail have dragged out Andrew Pierce to tour the TV studios this afternoon with the statement "We have never suggested that Harriet Harman in any way supported paedophilia"

I am the only person sitting here thinking today would be a good day to bury bad news ? Whats been happening in the house of commons / lords this week , anything of note ?

Don't know. What?

Having read the four pages from catkins link , i would have to agree with her .
Oh and the house of commons website is rather good .

Claig

I understand (from the BBC or Guardian - I forget which) that it was very easy to affiliate with the NCCL, which also had no procedures in place for disaffiliating undesirable affiliates. So the NCCL were stupid at the very least in having such lax procedures. Also the founder of PIE is claiming to have sat on an NCCL sub-committee, and he addressed at least one conference according to the BBC, which implies some level of tolerance. The current chief of the NCCL (now Liberty) Shami Chakrabarti has very clearly stated her horror and disgust over the link with PIE, which makes Harman's response and Hewitt's complete silence look worse.

Only gave the website a cursory glance , but will be back to give it my full attention.
Have to say that from what i have read of the actual document , it seems to be more concerned with protecting children from paedophiles as opposed to the other way round .
She even mentions the documentary 'Jonny come home ' which was about young boys who had run away to London being targetted by paedophiles and how this sort of film could be classed as indecent and yet was essential to opening the publics eyes to such activity .

It is an interesting situation. All parts of The Establishment have skeletons in their closets and they're all hoping that once a few faded and seedy celebs have been put through the wringer, post-Savile public anger will fade.

In the meantime, outfits like the Daily Mail can launch anti-paedo crusades to smear individuals they've got a grudge against. The individuals struggle to prove their innocence over a set of smears that flicker into and out of existence depending on how they're viewed and onlookers who might want to request that the Daily Mail set out fact-based arguments think better of it because they could end up paedo-smeared too.

Meanwhile politicians look on happy to see it being a circus of sound and fury rather than the start of a proper set of investigations.

Yes, I think Hewitt should say something. The only interview has been from Harman.

'I understand (from the BBC or Guardian - I forget which) that it was very easy to affiliate with the NCCL, which also had no procedures in place for disaffiliating undesirable affiliates.'

I find this strange. Are there any journalists looking into this?

I do not believe that a far right, racist group could have affiliated to the NCCL. I am sure somebody would have prevented that because the affiliated group could then use the fact that it is affiliated to the NCCL, which is a respected organisation, in its publicity etc to give it some sort of respectability, and if a far right group was affiliated to the NCCL then Labour MPs and other MPs would ask questions why, since it would harm the reputation of the NCCL.

So why did no one apparently question how a paedophile supporting group could be affiliated to the NCCL and why did the senior leadership of the NCCL not do something about it?

The former chairman of the PIE was interviewed on BBC Radio 4's Today programme this morning.

'Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt failed to take action to oust the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) because they "didn't want to rock the boat", its former chairman has claimed.

Tom O'Carroll said Labour's deputy leader and the former health secretary did not support PIE but "didn't even try" to cut its affiliation to the civil liberties organisation they worked at for the sake of their careers.'

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/26/pie-harriet-harman-rock-the-boat_n_4856460.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

@somewherewest

You stated

"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."

which kind of misses my point. My point was that sex with under-aged girls was sufficiently normalised in the 70s, the decade in question, that books about sex with children were not only not banned, they were feted as high literature. And pop stars and celebs who boasted publicly about such escapades were not locked up with "paedo" written on their cell - they, too, were admired as 'lads' and given prime Radio 1 shows.

In fact, Harman appears to have been at the rather more sensitive end of attitudes at the time; hardly surprising, given that she has devoted her working life to improving women's rights, and as a as a pp mentioned, the fact that paedophilia is no longer accepted as it was in the 70s is as a direct result of feminism and its insights into sexual power relationships, which after all, is what paedophilia is really about - and why it horrifies us so much now. The reason we do not accept paedophilia is because we have come to realise that the power imbalance in an adult-child relationship means that - contrary to the claims of the men involved - no child could ever be viewed as genuinely willing. This development goes hand-in-hand with changes in attitudes towards, for example, rape in marriage - and our greater understanding of what consent really means.

Harman is the very last person to be an apologist for paedophiles. No wonder she's furious.

Paedophilia was not accepted in the 70s. But a paedophile supporting group was allowed to have affiliate status to the NCCL.

The NCCL in 1976 campaigned to lower the age of consent to 14.

But this did not happen because society did not approve.

There are people who want the age of consent lowered to 14 today as well. But society is against it, just as society in the 1970s was against the campaign of the NCCL to lower the age of consent to 14.

This is from Peter Tatchell

"In Britain, consent at 14 has been supported in the past by the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) and the Howard League for Penal Reform. Even the ex-Bishop of Glasgow, Derek Rawcliffe, and the late Bishop of Woolwich, John ‘Honest to God’ Robinson, have backed 14 as fairer and more realistic. I don’t often agree with Anglican bishops, but in this case they are right: we do not protect young people by threatening them with arrest and imprisonment. Education and empowerment — not criminalisation — is the best protection."

www.freedominapuritanage.co.uk/why-the-age-of-consent-should-be-lowered-to-14/

and apparently the idea was floated by the Number Ten Policy Unit.

'No 10 policy unit 'suggested lowering age of consent to 14'

Lowering the age of sexual consent to 14 and allowing public nudity were among ideas suggested by Downing Street officials drawing up new laws on personal freedoms.'

...

''The Prime Minister considers the idea of lowering the age of consent to be offensive,'' he said, insisting there were no plans to do so.'

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9794842/No-10-policy-unit-suggested-lowering-age-of-consent-to-14.html

The general population in the 1970s was far less liberal than they are today. But it seems that in the 1970s there existed more radical and liberal forces, as the former chairman of PIE told the BBC, and that some of these radical and liberal forces even supported paedophile groups and that is why PIE could end up being affiliated to the NCCL.

"He told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Really they didn't do much to oppose PIE's presence in my view because there were these other liberal forces, or radical forces, within NCCL.

"The support didn't come from Harman and Co but it was there. The Gay Liberation Front was very radical and at that time Harman and Patricia Hewitt couldn't just kick out PIE. Well, they could both try but they didn't even try and the reason they didn't try is they didn't want to rock the boat because their careers within NCCL depended on them not rocking the boat too much."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/26/pie-harriet-harman-rock-the-boat_n_4856460.html?utm_hp_ref=uk

Tryingreallytrying

...the fact that paedophilia is no longer accepted as it was in the 70s....

This is the bit I'm not getting. That sentence clearly implies that you think paedophilia was accepted in the 70s. By who? If I recall the Saville case correctly most people who came into contact with Saville, such as nurses in the hospitals he hung around, were disgusted by what he got up to. The climate around reporting incidents was different, especially regarding powerful people, but that doesn't mean paedophilia was accepted. Likewise many people who grew up in the 60s & 70s have anecdotes about the 'local weirdo' who was known to take an interest in children - the fact that the weirdo was avoided rather than reported didn't mean anyone approved of what he was doing. There's also a big different between suggesting the age of consent should be fixed at say 14 rather than 16, and arguing that it should be virtually scrapped so that adults can engage in sex with supposedly 'consenting' pre-pubescent children. PIE apparently campaigned for the age of consent to be lowered to four, hardly a mainstream position in the 1970s. I just don't get why its so hard for some people to admit that the NCCL fucked up badly on this one, especially given their current chief has to her credit acknowledged that very clearly.

"In the meantime, outfits like the Daily Mail can launch anti-paedo crusades to smear individuals they've got a grudge against. The individuals struggle to prove their innocence over a set of smears that flicker into and out of existence depending on how they're viewed and onlookers who might want to request that the Daily Mail set out fact-based arguments think better of it because they could end up paedo-smeared too"

Liberty handled it well, by refusing to apologise Harman looks like she is protecting someone/s interests, that's why this isn't going away.

The DPP sowed this wind by going after Roache, Travis etc with dubious 40 year old accusations, now we are reaping the media whirlwind.

Harman is refusing to apologise, I suspect, because she's got nothing to apologise for.

The reason this PIE story is coming up now is because of the Savile affair and the fact that the police are looking into what went on in the 1970s etc and are looking at PIE.

There is even a suggestion that PIE may have received public funds.

"A Labour MP has called for an investigation into PIE after concerns that it could have received public money.

Tom Watson says he was contacted by a former civil servant who saw documentation suggesting the organisation received taxpayer funding under Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government.

"I was contacted by a former Home Office civil servant who told me that he saw a document that suggests the Paedophile Information Exchange got public money," he told the Daily Mail.

"The document was recommending approval for funding during the Thatcher government. My source, who does not wish to talk to the media, said it appeared to be a re-application for funds.

"He could not be certain whether or not it had been funded by a Labour government but he thought this was possible."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/26/pie-harriet-harman-rock-the-boat_n_4856460.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ir=UK

the fact that paedophilia is no longer accepted as it was in the 70s

I'm a bit unconvinced by this too. To me it looks more like in the 70s there was a culture of deference in which certain parts of society could do all kinds of nasty stuff and simply weren't held to account. Us lower orders could view it with disgust but we knew and they knew that the police weren't going to knock on their doors.

I agree with Tryingreallytrying

It's not so much that paedophilia was tolerated but that women and children had lesser rights, nit maybe in law but in reality. They certainly had lesser power.

I wonder, any of you who are say mid fifties and over-can you recall if you were at school with any girl who was a bit too knowing too early, the type grown - up women wouldn't trust around their husbands.

I know I was and looking back now I'd put money on that girl having been abused but nobody seemed to have much time or sympathy for her then.

Having read that Caitlin17, I'm now reminded that another aspect of the 70s view that an abuser-victim mechanism of the sexual abuse of children was often not acknowledged.

somewherewest -

"This is the bit I'm not getting. That sentence clearly implies that you think paedophilia was accepted in the 70s. By who?"

It is a fact that groups like PIE could publicly put forward their views, campaign for their ideas to be taken seriously, quite possible receive govt funding as per the most recent posts - are you really seriously suggesting nothing has changed in public attitudes towards paedophilia since the 70s? That this could happen now and no-one would blink an eyelid?

That is just ludicrous - they'd have their throats slit and peado (sic) written in blood on their doors these days if they went public with stuff now.

Of course things have changed since the 70s.

I must assume you are too young to remember the 70s - I do, and as a child of the 70s, I was free to roam everywhere with just my mates, take myself to school down deserted alleys etc as did everyone else. Children had far more freedom and were not wrapped in cotton wool as they are now. Sure, I was taught not to take sweeties from strange men, but then I was just left to it. Most 70s parents would have their kids removed by social services for neglect these days! The big diiference? There was no overwhelming fear of paedophilia or assumption that all strangers esp men were paedophiles unless proven otherwise. No checks on those who work with children etc. Yes, some people were known or rumoured to be a bit 'dodgy', but they weren't arrested for it! That's only happening now.

Which is why all the 70s skeletons are only coming out of the closet now. Because attitudes HAVE changed - it's ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

I was given a copy of Lolita as a birthday present when I was 9. From a well-meaning aunt.

Things WERE different in the 70s. It's not that paedophilia was acceptable, but notions of what paedophilia actually meant and how harmful it was were different. As kids we all joked about our encounters with 'dirty old men'. It's not that these men were approved of, but they weren't taken as seriously as they are now and certainly none of us had our freedom curtailed because of them.

Remember also that children left school at 16 (was it even 15?) and went to work. Most didn't go to university. The average age at first marriage and first pregnancy was much lower than it is now. The general attitude towards children was much less protective; adults' interests generally came first. Remember that these were the years in which we all sat unattended outside pubs while our parents got bladdered inside; we would be sent up the road to buy our parents' fags; we all walked to and from school alone from the age of 7. By 8 or 9 I was a 'latchkey kid', letting myself in and sorting out the tea while my mum worked. This was all considered perfectly normal parenting in the 70s, not at all sub-standard.

The current prosecutions of 70s light entertainment stars are really interesting because they show how society HAS changed. I'm not making excuses for what they did - it's partly because of feminist activism in the 70s and 80s that things changed, and I'm proud to have been part of that - but I'm sure it's true that some of the charges being brought now would never have been brought back then.

Tryingreallytrying Correct. Parents were far less hands on. Children weren't ferried about in cars, we did have more freedom and more responsibility.

I find it very strange when there are threads on here agonising about things 16,17 and 18 year olds do. When I started school the leaving age was 15. It was raised to 16 but there was nothing surprising in the non academic children leaving at 16 or 17 and being married with their own children. This wasn't a deprived inner city area but a reasonably comfortable farming community in Aberdeenshire.

You're absolutely right we didn't think there were paedophiles every where.

Devora what you say,all true, and applicable to all classes.

All that said, I absolutely agree with the pp who wonders what bad news the govt were trying to hide this week!!

My money is on the ILLEGAL SALE of all our NHS records to an insurance company for peanuts in the same week that the govt had to postpone legislation to allow them to do just that because it was unpopular. That should have been much bigger news than it was...