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.

of course people can grasp the true import of this and this, at last, is looking at the real issues rather than sideline associations and political smear. this is a cross party, establishment issue and as that article shows there are far, far more important issues and figures to investigate and go after than a witch hunt on HH.

i'm glad to see that's happening.

As much as I dislike hh I feel like all the attention on her is detracting from the real issues.

It's absolutely shocking that governments would help to fund a paedophile group.

I really think there needs to be a proper enquiry- preferably conducted by non politically affiliated lay people to investigate the relationship between the establishment and paedophiles. There has had to have been a cover up in the Cyril Smith and jimmy saville cases. I also find some of the judiciary's judgements on child abuse and their attitude towards the victims highly suspect to say the least.

Thank you for the links about Margaret Hodge I wasn't born till 87 so I wasn't aware of the Islington scandal. It's disgusting that someone who was complicit in child abuse- to me her failure to act makes her complicit was allowed to not only be in government but have a ministerial role. I have so much respect for the social workers who did not give up until they were heard.

Whoever mentioned Leon Brittan...Yes, it's interesting that Thatcher moveed him to Europe.

A bit off-topic but I didn't know that Harriet Harman and David Cameron were half-cousins.

The Harman defenders need to wrap their heads around the fact that Harman knew what PIE was and it they stood for.

And yet apparently The DM thought it would be better to wait 30 years to bring her to account, even though they knew what it stood for too.

I think everyone on this thread realises that the DM has its own political agenda especially in the run up to the election but that doesnt take away the fact that this is a dirty part of our political history that needs to be exposed and this whole thing is far bigger than HH and her decisions 30 years ago.

If any good can come of this then it will be to expose the widespread child abuse of the most vulnerable children up and down the country and those that allowed it to happen.

I cant see it happening because it goes too high up the chain but there is now a small bit of hope.

Joan Smith article in the Independent

"PIE controversy: Harriet Harman has got this one wrong"

www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/pie-controversy-harriet-harman-has-got-this-one-wrong-9162728.html

I agree with the other comments. This apparent widespread turning a blind eye by The Establishment should be the focus of any campaign launched by the Daily Mail. Harman getting a job with an entity which previously had allowed PIE to make a connection to it nearly 40 years ago is a distraction.

yes. it's a 'look over here at this 'orrible uppity bitch we don't like' rather than looking at the bloody herd of elephants in the room.

It's absolutely shocking that governments would help to fund a paedophile group.

That's not what the report says. A PIE sympathiser in the civil service with the power to sign off grants gave a total of £70,000 (worth £400,000) to them over a period spanning two opposing governments.

I can't see what Scotland Yard would be able to do about it even if the man was still alive unless the grant to PIE was underhand and then the most he could be charged with would be fraud.

I find Tom Watson's comments in that Mirror link interesting. He seems to be talking about policing people's thoughts - as someone who has suffered for his views at the hands of the tabloid press I would have thought he was against that.

I'm not an apologist for paedophilia but unless someone has committed a criminal act you can't touch them.

If there is a cabal of powerful paedophiles, then you go after them for the things that they have done but not their thoughts.

You should really be careful about those views you make criminal rather than those you stand up against and say are disgusting just in case one day something thinks your views should be made illegal too.

That's what NCCL and now Liberty are all about.

The distraction is in 'blaming' the Mail, not examining the issue at hand.

I am glad, though I despise the Mail generally, when it did the right thing (IMO) and put named photos of the Stephen Lawrence suspects on the front page (at a time when it was impossible to put them on trial) with a "go on, sue us, we'd love to see you in Court" message. It didn't matter then, or now, that much of their other output could be considered xenophobic - this was right.

And I think it is right to examine the ethical judgement of those who seek election and are likely to gain public office if elected and in government.

The difference in reaction between Harman and Hewitt has been telling. One of them has definitely gone down in my estimation.

No, examination of the Mail's behaviour is precisely the issue at hand. They are the ones trying to use distraction techniques: why else are they reviving an ancient story that just happens to target Labour politicians they don't like (and particularly ones who supported Leveson) whilst ignoring the involvement of Thatcher's government with Savile, and whilst being perfectly happy to print sexualised pictures of under-age girls?

To add: it would be legitimate to ask why PIE were given a grant, if if was authorised.

Just like it would be legitimate to ask why grants might be given to the EDL, for instance.

They aren't banned either, but most people would say they should not receive public funding.

So I'd agree with Tom Watson if he wants greater scrutiny of all special interest groups in public life.

Once again, meditrina, if you think Harman should follow Hewitt's example, precisely what is it you say she should apologise for?

But the thing with PIE is that they were called THE PAEDOPHILE INFORMATION EXCHANGE.

It's not like they were called The National Gardeners Association and they kept their agenda secret.

They were all about fucking children and were very out there about it.

You could have argued at some point that you didn't have a clue what the EDL or BNP really stood for. You absolutely can't say that with PIE

ignoring the involvement of Thatcher's government with Savile

Thatcher's government were in thrall to Savile because he was a union-buster - though I think he promised more than he delivered.

I expect lots of people in Fleet Street in the 1980s knew exactly what he was up to with young people but turned a blind eye for the same reasons.

Hewitt was the chair or some such (sorry) at the time of PIE's affiliation - hence she had responsibility and had something clear to apologise for

that's why her and harman's responses are different - because their involvement and responsibility is different not to mention the simple facts of chronology - harman never even went to work there until after her husband had challenged PIE's involvement and spoken against their influence.

Daily Mail is vile but it is not holding or seeking a parliamental seat at the next election and neither is Thatcher, or Patricia Hewitt. HH is and should apologize for joining and working for an organization that actively assisted a known paedofile organization to lower the age of consent . The fact that she refuses is very telling.

nancy66 I don't want to fall into that trap of saying things were different in the '70s but I can see I'm going to.

I'm not quite old enough to remember but I don't think people were familiar with the term paedophile. They talked about dirty old men. And in some cases, like certain 13, 14 or 15 year old girls, they didn't even think it was a crime - and some of them still don't.

Some people didn't think it was a crime for men to sexually abuse certain young boys either - or certainly nothing they'd get worked up about.

Paedophiles still exist, but they would not be open about it or campaign at all for the lowering of the age of consent. That's because we know what they are and express our disgust.

Good.

I am still wary of criminalising people's thoughts, however revolting I might find them.

'I don't think people were familiar with the term paedophile'

But I think that the Executive Committee of the NCCL were.

and other people working for the NCCL

Yes, I think we're much more aware of paedophilia now and that's, largely, thanks to new media.

"and other people working for the NCCL"

And the national press.

In the context of John Peel marrying a 15 year old and of Mandy Smith/Bill Wyman and of the lower ages of consent in some European countries, was lowering the age of consent to 14 as controversial then as it would be now?

Yes, claig. I expect they were. Jack Dromey certainly was because it appears he opposed PIE, though he didn't manage to expel them. I don't know why that was.

Harman has expressed regret that PIE were linked to the NCCL. I suppose she could apologise for working for the NCCL while they were affiliate members. I don't see why not except that it probably wouldn't end there. Perhaps she could self-immolate.

It doesn't negate the entirety of the good work done by the NCCL or by Harman, for that matter.

Well, that's IMO. What's your view? Do you think on balance that the NCCL and other civil rights groups are a good thing, or a bad one?

And what's your view on criminalising people's thoughts rather than their deeds - the practicalities of doing that, rather more than the principle?