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.

'And the national press.'

Absolutely. But are we sure that the national press did not question PIE's affiliation with the NCCL at the time?

We know that

"Paedophile Action for Liberation had developed as a breakaway group from South London Gay Liberation Front. It was the subject of an article in the Sunday People, which dedicated its front page and centre-spread to the story . The result was intimidation of, and loss of employment for, some of those who were exposed. It later merged with PIE.[3]

This exposé on PAL had a chilling effect on PIE members' willingness for activism . In the PIE Chairperson's Annual Report for 1975-6, Keith Hose wrote that 'The only way for PIE to survive, was to seek out as much publicity for the organization as possible.... If we got bad publicity we would not run into a corner but stand and fight. We felt that the only way to get more paedophiles joining PIE... was to seek out and try to get all kinds of publications to print our organization's name and address and to make paedophilia a real public issue.'

A campaign to attract media attention was not effective at that time, but Hose's attendance at the 1975 annual conference of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (CHE) in Sheffield, where he made a speech on paedophilia, was covered at length in The Guardian.

In the same year Hose also attended a conference organized by Mind, the national mental health organization, where it was suggested that PIE should submit evidence to the Home Office Criminal Law Revision Committee on the age of consent. PIE submitted a 17-page document in which it proposed that there should be no age of consent, and that the criminal law should concern itself only with sexual activities to which consent is not given, or which continue after prohibition by a civil court."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

The Bill Wyman/ Mandy smith affair came much later.
I was just starting out as a junior reporter when they married and there was definitely a lot of outrage/repulsion over that.

Claigs link shows that one of the members of NCCL quit because of PIE in 1979 whilst HH was working there. I dont believe he could have been the only member to realise the huge implications of what they could potentially be seen to be promoting as a just cause.

Yesterday a Court of Protection judge confirmed that he resigned in 1979 when he discovered that representatives of PIE were speaking at NCCL meetings at the London School of Economics

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

'was lowering the age of consent to 14 as controversial then as it would be now?'

Obviously not to the NCCL who were in favour of it. But the population in general would not have approved and of course despite attempts to campaign for that policy, it never became law.

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?

BusinessUnusual I mostly agree with you. Except there was that case of the teacher who had sex with his 15 year old pupil - the one who took her to France - abducted her, in fact.

Lots of people, including people on MN, thought it was a love story.

But the population in general would not have approved and of course despite attempts to campaign for that policy, it never became law.

Probably true. I'd want to leave it at 16. But that doesn't mean to say I don't want the age of consent discussed or what we should do with people who transgress it.

I think most people would view a 16 year old boy who had sex with his 15 year old girlfriend differently to a 30 year old man who had sex with the same girl.

Talking about things is good, IMO.

Is it really justifiable to vilify people 30 years later for taking relatively junior jobs in an organisation that had done one stupid thing whilst doing a myriad of other highly beneficial things? Is it conceivable that Harman took the view that she could do more about this from the inside?

I think we need to be told more about what the Executive Committee of teh NCCL and others working for teh NCCL did to combat PIE and to attempt to have it expelled, if they did that.

'I suppose she could apologise for working for the NCCL while they were affiliate members. I don't see why'

I think she is in a difficult position, because if she does apologise for that, then it shows a lack of judgement.

The NCCL did do good work. I didn't realise the NCCL has fewer than 12 employees at one stage. It was called "National" which gives the impression that it is quite large. It campaigned for changes to some of our laws. It had affiliated to it, PIE, and PIE's chairman was on one of its sub-committees. How much influence should an unelected "National" council of civil liberties, with at one stage fewer than 12 employees, have on our elected lawmakers?

No one was or is criminalised for their thoughts. People in public life or public office are being asked to explain how they could be part of an organisation that had affiliated to it, a group that contained paedophiles and this group, PIE, wanted, we are told, the age of consent to be 4.

"But are we sure that the national press did not question PIE's affiliation with the NCCL at the time?"

I think some of them did, but there don't appear to have been any high profile campaigns, and it appears that when Hewitt and Harman were actually in power nobody was so bothered about it that they thought it worth bringing up.

It only seems to be in the light of more recent events that it is a story.

The Morror told us that

"More than a million people signed a petition demanding PIE’s child-sex campaign be banned – but it never was."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-information-exchange-taxpayers-cash-3197625

This million people must have learned about it from the press, as there was no twitter or internet in those days.

Joan Smith in the Independent says

"The brightest people make mistakes, even if it’s a matter of failing to notice something or act robustly enough.

That’s what Harman, who went to work at the NCCL after PIE affiliated to it, should have acknowledged."

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

But I don't think Harman can say that she made a mistake because it is too big an error of judgement, in my opinion. That is why it is a difficult position.

This million people must have learned about it from the press, as there was no twitter or internet in those days.

Yes, I expect they did.

However they learned about it they were asking for the 'child-sex campaign' to be banned.

Would you want to live in a country that banned campaigns?

Unless people are committing unlawful acts or inciting others to do so, surely that's criminalising thoughts?

And I'm not sticking up for paedophiles. I'm saying that they can say what they want and we can say: 'You're disgusting.'

Out of interest, if a campaigning group was set up today and was arguing that the age of consent should be drastically reduced, what do posters here think should be done? Should the members of the group be prosecuted for campaigning?

'Would you want to live in a country that banned campaigns?'

Yes, because I believe that there are lines that need to be drawn. A campaign promotes its position in the public sphere and there are some things that the public believe are beyond the pale. To allow paedophiles to campaign and spread their views and to allow them to affiliate is an insult to the public and should not be allowed. It is about morals. It is not criminalising thoughts. But if thoughts like that are made public and given publicity and exposure, then that should be stopped.

"there are some things that the public believe are beyond the pale."

The problem with that logic is that there are lots of things that the public has thought beyond the pale - women voting, homosexuality - that the public has changed it's mind on as the result of campaigns.

Your logic has to be stronger than that.

What criminal sanction would you favour? Would you send people to prison for stating their (revolting) views?

Okay. That's your view. I don't agree with it. I think it's dangerous.

There are many things that people think are beyond the pale - homosexuality, abortion, the illegal invasion of sovereign nations - shall we stop all public discussion of them?

Though I don't agree with many of your views, claig, the one thing I took from your posts and definitely did agree with, is that people have the right to know things and that more information should be released and discussed, not less.

I'm too slow, merrymouse, too slow.

I would ban paedophile campaigning groups and the promotion of paedophilia. I agree with the more than a milion people

"More than a million people signed a petition demanding PIE’s child-sex campaign be banned – but it never was."

www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-information-exchange-taxpayers-cash-3197625

a campaign would be banned if it contravened equality laws and/or amounted to hate speech or incitement to hate crimes.

i would imagine a 'child sex' campaign would not be able to run nowadays under modern child protection laws (which weren't in place at the time). it wouldn't need to be thought crime stuff as other legislation would cover it without having to make a leap.

'causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity' for example is a crime now.

The age of consent is still regularly discussed though, (including on MN), e.g. re: the case of the girl and her teacher.

yes and judges still regularly describe 12yos as willing participants or instigators.

I would ban paedophile campaigning groups and the promotion of paedophilia. I agree with the more than a milion people

The difficulty with that is what your definition of paedophilia is.

It's easy if we're talking about adults having sex with under 10s, say. No one had any difficulty understanding that what Ian Watkins did was wrong, even if we did have difficulty wrapping our heads round the idea of why anyone would want to do that.

But it's not always so clear cut.

The age of consent is 16, yet in the case of the teacher and the 15 year old girl who ran away to France, lots of people, including many on here, didn't think he should have been prosecuted.

I think he should have been. And I think the age of consent might as well stay at 16. But I wouldn't want to prosecute a 16 year old boy who had consensual sex with the same girl. Or one of 14 or possibly even one of 13 - though I'd start to wonder about that.

I also wonder what I'd do with a 12 year old boy who had sex with a 10 year old girl. In my view, prosecution might not be the right thing to do.

That doesn't make me right but it does give me the right to talk about it and listen to others.

"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

Yes, the age of consent is still regularly discussed. And the NCCL at the time could and did discuss it. But there is no place for any input from paedophiles or paedophile groups in that discussion.