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.

'they represented the national front didn't they?'

But the National Front was not affiliated to them and the Chaiman of the National Front was not on one of its committees, unlike Tom O'Carroll, the chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange.

in what year was tom o'caroll on a committee for them?

claig why don't you address the DMs publishing of sexualised images of children for titilation? does that not bother you?

'why are you assuming that a libertarian group of activists and lawyers probably mostly staffed by volunteers actually vetted anyone?'

You are right, i am assuming it and I may be wrong.
My guess is that Patricia Hewiit, General Secretary of the NCCL from 1974-1983, might know how the NCCL operated and if affiliate status could have been granted to the Ku Klux Klan and if an advert could have been placed in one of their magazines.

I hope that journalists will not drop the story and will interview Hewitt so that we can find out more about how the NCCL operated and how PIE became an affiliate.

The seventies were all about free speech weren't they? I remember in the eighties when I was at university, there being a being a big debate as to whether we would allow a platform for racist/sexist/homophobic speakers.

Previously we had allowed anyone to say what they liked. But attitudes to free speech changed a lot in the eighties.

i hope they won't make it their top priority under the guise of 'caring about kids' whilst rome burns though. would much rather see them hound those judges who think children can be asking for it.

so you are ok with the DM sexualising children then? you think it is less of a concern than whether or not HH realised that PIE had an advert in a magazine produced by a organisation she worked for decades ago?

' i would imagine PIE weedled into a load of groups at the time for a while should we investigate all of those groups'

I think public figures who were in groups into which the PIE wheedled their way in, should be asked about it.

'or should we investigate the mps known to have frequented elm house, to have abused children in care with audacity, those who allowed paedophiles access to children and covered up what they did'

Absolutely, all of these MPs should be questioned and investigated and I don't understand why it is taking so long.

It's taking so long because our MPs don't want it to be investigated.

I don't think the Daily Mail do sexualise children.

Harriet Harman is Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and she worked for an organisation that had the Paedophile Information Exchange affiliated to it.

and the media is colluding and offering distractions like this shite instead.

look over there! HH!

Sorry I don't get what people are arguing about any more.
Surely nobody really thinks that Harman actively plotted to promote paedophilia.
Surely there is no argument here and now about the disgracefulness of the aims of PIE.

Surely therefore the only productive area of discussion is what equivalent excesses of patriarchal liberalism are active now in the name of "liberty", what harm they are doing to women and young people and children, and what can be done about them?

'It's taking so long because our MPs don't want it to be investigated.'

Yes, that is possibly right. And when the Mail printed the story about PIE,the rest of the media and even political class pretended that they didn't see it on the front page of the Daily Mail.

Only our press can set agendas, and if they don't drop it, maybe they will ask questions about Elm House etc as well.

Thatswhat, there are many, many victims of historic child abuse who need their voices to be heard.

Constitutional rights exist because of a general belief in universal rights.

I'm not saying that letting the PIE be members was a good idea, but I would imagine that they aren't the first and only unsavoury people that the NCCL and Liberty have supported in the name of human rights.

As Honey Badger says I thought being non-judgemental was rather the point. They tend to deal in an area where the moral and ethical can be a bit uncertain.

Does this mean HH herself supported the PIE? No.

i don't think their voices are calling for HH's blood fala. they'd like the real culprits to be addressed, not to have their hell used cynically by the DM to attack a woman they hate or play party politics.

Do we want people governing the country who feel that the moral and ethical are a bit uncertain?

No.

'I'm not saying that letting the PIE be members was a good idea, but I would imagine that they aren't the first and only unsavoury people that the NCCL and Liberty have supported in the name of human rights.'

Surely they must be the most unsavoury?

Lawyers have to defend criminals and even paedophiles in court cases because that is how our justice system works. But no civil liberties grouo has to accept paedophiles or the Ku Klux Klan as affiliates and if they do, it is legitimate to ask questions about why and to question their judgement.

i beg to differ fala. the alternative is something like sharia law.

"Do we want people governing the country who feel that the moral and ethical are a bit uncertain?"

Yes.

Because if you think moral and ethical decisions are always straightforward you really shouldn't be any position of responsibility.

thank god you had the same gut reaction of common sense there as me merry. i was worried.

On the matter of paedophilia, I think the moral and ethical has always been clear cut.

'"Do we want people governing the country who feel that the moral and ethical are a bit uncertain?"'

And does the moral and ethical extend to allowing affiliation of the Paedophile Information Exchange?

There are clear lines. toynbee was right when she said

"Toynbee talked of her "disgust, aversion and anger" at the group but added that she had a sinking feeling that in another five years or so, their aims would eventually be incorporated into the general liberal credo , and we would all find them acceptable".

The Paedophile Information Exchange wanted that to happen. they wanted to be accepted into "the general liberal credo" and that is why they affiliated to the NCCL, and it was a gross error of judgement for the NCCL to allow them to do so.