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.

yep lazyjane Joan Smith bang on. Labour have been so stupid about this. At a level,what HH has done wrong is relatively small beer, but her sin is absolute arrogance in not to apologising for her naivity/ political 'ignoring what was in plain sight'.

We want our elected politicians to have moral grit. She just look self-serving.

and the tories and libs are falling all over themselves apologising for the known pedarists their parties covered up? come on. you must see how partisan you're being.

Imo there is no difference between using images of child abuse to wank over, and abusing children. Both are abuse- one is just by proxy.
My point about post pubescent children I guess is that its quite common for men to find 14/15
year old girls sexually attractive. Most wouldn't dream of acting on it.
It is probably not common to find 6 year olds sexually attractive. Paedophilia us a specific perversion. I say this with no intention to excuse anything at all, simply to correctly categorise sexual perversion.
And, please, but nabakov penning a brilliant novel on self delusion cannot be equated with a civil liberties group giving PIE a platform, because he wasn't advocating paedophilia! Quite the opposite actually. Lolita IS an uncomfortable read precisely because we are inside a paedophiles head, but that's what great literature does - makes us examine our own preconceptions and predjudices. In the case of Lolita, that doesn't mean predjuces against perverts, but maybe about the nature of the young " temptress" and the real reasons her life becomes a pile up of misery.

Incidentally, I read the book at around 14, and got it straight away, maybe because I was dealing with the advances of much older men by then.
Sorry for book review hijack!

honeybadger was that to me? As a labour voter I reject that I'm being partisan. Quite the opposite. Because it's the party that I have always voted, i do accept high standards of integrity though.

ifnotnow whilst intellectually musing on lolita be aware that many will have masturbated over it. the intent and your interpretation/reading of it doesn't change that fact for the pedarist it is erotica.

paedophiles aren't an interesting rare species and there isn't below this age it's one thing and above it's another in my opinion. plenty of men who have raped 14 yos have raped younger kids.

Joan Smith bang on

starlady do you mean that Joan Smith who's an ex-girlfriend of Denis MacShane?

That Labour MP who was jailed last year for fiddling nearly £13,000 in expenses?

The one she's never written about in her column in the Independent?

That column that she used to write about Harriet Harman who hasn't been convicted of anything?

I'm a Labour voter too. There are quite a few of us about.

I have high standards and integrity too. But I also have an inquiring mind and I can see where there's a grudge match going on that I don't know about.

Do you ever wonder too?

The difficulty with concentrating on sexual perversion is that plenty of things considered sexually perverted by some are legal between consenting adults. There is a specific reason why sex with a child is illegal.

TheHoneyBadger I share your revulsion at adults sleeping with children of whatever age but IfNotNow is correct - the technical definition of paedophilia is a sexual attraction to pre-pubescent children. That's not a matter of opinion. The diagnostic criteria considers age 13 to be the cut-off point for pre-pubescence although there will undoubtedly be some late developers who haven't yet gone through puberty by that age. (Hebephilia is the term for sexual attraction towards post-pubescent adolescents, incidentally and yes, some people suffer from both.)

I don't know how the CPS works, but I presume that it does not prosecute if it thinks the case is not strong enough

There are two tests a case must pass before it can proceed to prosecution. Firstly, the evidential test - there must be sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction. If there isn't the case fails at the first test.

The second is the public interest test. If it is deemed not in the public interest to proceed, the case will be dropped even if there is considered to be sufficient evidence. A case where a 16 year old boy has been accused of having sex with his 15 year old girlfriend may well be discontinued on the grounds it is not in the public interest to brand him a criminal and a sex offender, but each case is considered on its individual merits.

There are people who masturbate over balloons. You can't really control that.
I guess what paedophiles and hebephiles have in common, and the reason offenders are sometimes both, is that they get off on the power aspect. This is why a 30 year old teacher running off with a 15 year old (who he seems to have groomed from younger-based on my speculation of the case, not fact) is abhorrent; there is a power imbalance, and that is why most right thinking people know that is wrong, whereas 2 15 year olds having sex may be inadvisable, but is not morally repugnant in the same way.
Anyway, aside from this, I must say I am depressed by many revelations that have come out in the press lately. I think the reason a lot of people think HH should apologise is that, as others have said, she is not stupid, and must realise that working for a body who was affiliated with a Paedophile rights group was morally reprehensible.
As for Jimmy Saville, it was common knowledge that he was a wrong un. Just how wrong, well, maybe not, but I well remember telling my dad in the 80's that I wanted to go on Jum'll Fix It, and him saying something like "over my dead body-he's a Bad Man"
The establishment has known about things, and continues to know about things that the mere civilian (i.e most of us) would be horrified about.
I don't give a shit about party politics, but they do, and they will do anything to cover their own arses.

yes i know the technical definition - thanks. my concern was more that it sounded like it was being said that above 13 was somehow normal. i guess to me paedophile or an adult who likes having sex with 14 year olds are equally reprehensible and should both be prosecuted and dealt with firmly. the age distinction is fine for psychiatrists and dx but for a judge a child of 14 should be seen as the same as a child of 10 because they are both legally children, it is against the law for grown men to have sex with them (whether because they are a paedophile or some who rapes slightly older children). at present it seems judges are frequently failing to grasp that a 14 year old is legally a child and having sex with her is not ok.

what i was saying about lolita was the analogy of herman got to have a voice and it was for the reader to reject it - right thinking people may wish to assume oh everyone would reject it, everyone would see it as a story about x but very clearly they didn't. 'lolita' wouldn't be used linguistically as it is now if everyone had 'got it' would it? but you defend the right of the artist to portray that topic.

for some in the freedom of speech is all camp they may have felt PIE had the right to raise the topic and that the 'reader' (general public, lawmakers etc) would reject it - fortunately in this case they did reject it, the law didn't change, child rape did not come to be seen the way they wanted it seen. i can imagine the argument within an org like NCCL at the time could be much like the argument we could have over writing and publishing lolita and it's social responsibility where some would defend the right on the assumption that the reader is right thinking and will reject humberts perspective and see the victim whilst others would argue that no, in a world where girls 'are' seen as sexual temptresses and men do have perverted desires towards them and project these onto the girl it is not socially responsible to give this character voice who for many will be identified 'with' at the expense of the child. hence rape victims today being called 'little lolitas'.

i'd imagine the liberal and probably quite academic culture of NCCL would have leant towards freedom of speech at all costs and never patronise the reader or make decisions as to what they should or should not say/do/see/etc. it sounds as if they were torn - some totally against, some defending the right of PIE to have a platform and be seen as having a right to voice the same as anyone else. some who were defending might have been doing so for their own dubious reasons and have been in agreement with PIE's agendas, others may have been defending the principle that they were never to judge and revoke 'morality' or they would be just like the establishment, those who were totally against would have been speaking a different language entirely to the revolutionary concepts that were being bandied by the other side.

in the end those against won out (HH's husband at the helm of that). i can imagine that the compromise was that they were allowed to still be technically affiliated but that for example, the organisation would not back their campaigns.

if it was 12 people arguing around a table in a situation where they were trying to avoid hierarchical force or authority then i can see quite well that that might have taken quite a while of circular arguing and failing to come to agreement in a way that say a company with a clear line of power and decision making and no hesitation to use it, would not.

and why i think the focus on HH is unfair is that she went AFTER this had been resolved. yes she'd have known there'd been conflict and divide over PIE within the org and that it had been difficult to resolve and that at one stage they had far too much influence. BUT she could quite optimistically think that was in the past of the org, that there was a clear contingent within the org who were against them and that the question of PIE had been resolved really albeit a few sympathisers still on board. she knew her husband was 'on it', had made good progress and it was a waining influence that would soon be totally gotten rid of. - that is so easy to imagine and to fit with the timeline.

but actually everyone says she should explain - for all you know it's impossible for her to explain what went on without ending up being sued for slander. maybe the 'explanation' would be:

"my husband, x, y and c were TOTALLY against PIE unfortunately Z who was in a position of considerable sway was a PIE member. my husband, x, y and c reassured me that they had cut off Z's influence and had it under control and PIE no longer had active influence and they were working on disassociating themselves totally from them asap. i was assured i would have no involvement whatsoever and that the vast majority of people i worked with found PIE abhorrent and would defend child rights at all costs"

so then what? Z is suing for slander, x, y and c have had their names dragged into the paper which they have been making clear they do not want to happen etc

everyone has assumed the person who did apologise has done so because they have more backbone or because they aren't an MP. for all we know in this imaginary scenario the apologiser is Z and is taking responsibility in a weak statement because they were responsible. not accusing her of that but really we have no idea.

I am sorry honeybadger, but the only way the way the book Lolita would be comparable to the NCCl debacle, would be if the writer had listed contact details for a paedophile group in the fly leaf.
Anyhoo.

Daily Mail front page
one of Cameron's top aides arrested over child porn

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572495/No-10-aide-arrested-child-porn-Police-quiz-man-advised-Cameron-web-filters.html

m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26428308 and the bbc take on it

Cameron aide arrested in 'child abuse imagery' inquiry
12 minutes ago

Mr Rock had been involved in preparation for a summit about abuse images
One of David Cameron's aides has been arrested on suspicion of an offence "relating to child abuse imagery", Downing Street has said.

Patrick Rock, the deputy head of the policy unit, resigned on 12 February.

Number 10 said it had been made aware of a potential offence and immediately referred the matter to the National Crime Agency (NCA), which arrested Mr Rock at his home a few hours later on 13 February.

The NCA has not confirmed the arrest.

A Downing Street spokesman said that following Mr Rock's arrest, it "arranged for officers to come into Number 10 [to] have access to all IT systems and offices they considered relevant".

The prime minister was immediately informed and kept updated throughout, he said.

He added: "This is an on-going investigation so it would not be appropriate to comment further, but the prime minister believes that child abuse imagery is abhorrent and that anyone involved with it should be properly dealt with under the law."

BBC political correspondent Iain Watson said Mr Rock has been a fixture in the upper echelons of the Conservative Party for three decades, initially working for Margaret Thatcher, and was brought back into Downing Street by David Cameron in 2011.

As deputy head of the policy unit, he was one of a number of officials who had been working on policies to rid the internet of child abuse, our correspondent said.

Mr Rock was involved in preparations for a summit last year, working with the NCA, at which leading companies agreed to make it as difficult as possible to find images of abuse on their search engines.

Downing Street said ministers and not advisers determined the policy.

thatcher seemed to rather collect them.

At last, the police and media are focusing their attention on Thatchers proteges.

That'll keep em busy for a few years.

13 Feb: Rock, a senior policy bloke in No.10 is arrested.

19 Feb: The Daily Mail goes mental trying to generating as much coverage as it can about a dormant paedophilia story. To some extent a HH-paedophile link is established in the public consciousness.

4 March: The news of Rock's arrest breaks.

Remarkable.

It all seems a tad convenient nauticant

The HH story has been well known in media circles for years and you really think more would have been made of it re op Yew Tree.

ReadTheWholeThreadAndStillNotBeenAbleToFormAnOpinionOnHHTiggaxx

see that's the thing - i don't really have much of an opinion on HH herself. i'm being assumed to be an HH supporter and i'm not sure that i am but have do stand up against what looks like bullying and targeting and repeated attacks that appear to have a misogynistic undertone (hardly 'under' at all much of the time) and seem spiteful in intent and to mislead facts.

i have defended HH several times over the years because she seems to come in for these attacks so frequently and so many seem keen to join in and loathe her on very little basis that i can see. but i'm not pro HH as such or a fan and i don't have any personal feelings towards the woman be it like or dislike tbh.

basically when i see 'burn the witch' press and campaigns i'd defend the witch even i couldn't stand her personally. unless it was margaret thatcher, i'm afraid i draw the line there.

I suspect the timing of everything is all part of the same Zeitgeist, and it's probably not game over with HH yet.

What the NCCL/HH/PIE thing made clear to me was that even the people I'd expect to see fighting this sort of thing weren't, so I have no doubt the paedo crew got themselves deeply entrenched, and digging them out will still be a lot of work. I don't buy that it was Thatcher only, I think they were worming their way in irresepective of who is in power.

oh i agree but the thatcher era seems flagrantly riddled - not just amongst the tories obviously.