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.

i actually think there is something about power, or probably more likely something about those who seek power, that links to a higher proportion of cruel, violent or otherwise entitled sexuality.

Power is what sexual abuse is all about. That is the very nub of it.

yes and the more power you have the higher the 'hits' have to be i should think. also perhaps the higher the level of entitlement.

There was a radio programme about Savile which explained, too, the thrill of blatantly risking discovery and still getting away with it. I forget the exact term the psychologist used. Savile was always doing that - actually telling people in so many words what he was up to, and still getting away with it.

There is a really nasty youtube clip that I can't bring myself to link to of Saville groping a 14 year old Nolan sister for an extended period of time on some TV programme.

I've remembered the term - it's "duping delight".

this is part of why i shy away from the obsession with categorising sexual crimes and child abuse. it is perfectly possible to commit the crime of raping a child without being a paedophile per se - sadism motivates some as much as sexual attraction and for some the more sadistic the more arousing. also we acknowledge when it comes to rape of adults that it is not really about sex but about power and control yet when it comes to children we assume that the criminals actions are about their sexuality. why?

being "attracted to" or aroused by children may be a particular bent but actually abusing children is something else. much like being heterosexual and being a rapist are not synonymous. we don't say ahhh but he's a heterosexual, he's ill, he can't help himself do we? it doesn't actually matter what your sexual leanings are or what you turns you on rape is rape, child rape is child rape, sexual abuse is sexual abuse.

the issue is the abuse and the entitlement and the 'kick' from having power over and subduing the natural will of another. people who are attracted to women don't go out and rape them unless they are a rapist, people who find themselves attracted to children don't go out and rape them unless they are a rapist and not everyone who rapes children has a sexual bent that precludes adults, some just get a kick out of raping children because it's the next thing to do.

some people are just sadists who get off on power be they gay, straight or attracted to donkeys.

sorry i forgot to say what i meant to - my concern with the existence and availability of child pornography is that it broadens the interest group from those who have always been attracted to children and only to children and represent whatever percentage of the population to those who are natural born sadists who are looking for bigger and bigger kicks say or for those who do the escalation thing that happens as with the so called 'porn addicts' who have to up the anti for kicks until they're watching more and more horrific things in order to be turned on, desensitise themselves to sex in the normal spectrum (broad as that may be) and find their sexual mores pushed more and more out there.

stopping child pornography is primarily about protecting children from the abuse that has to be endured to create it but it is also about protecting society from 'growing' that demographic that comes to see having sex with children as arousing. if you look at the simple example of how pornography has changed sexual tastes in terms of pubic hair in a short period you can see that actually yes, the shit people watch DOES change their sexuality and their arousal patterns.

and actually that makes it all the more bloody important that we DO focus on the daily mail titillating people with pics of 13yos in bikinis and implying sexual agency into their posing for a camera and we DO fight hard against the sexualisation of children in advertising and the like.

I agree with your last two posts, which are very good. At the risk of being tedious though, could we please retire the expression 'child porn' in favour of child abuse images or some other more accurate expression?

and it doesn't even have to be 'real' child porn - a simple google of free porn will lead you to sites with 'daddy fucks his daughter' or 'schoolgirl rape' - the girl in the movie may be of age but the arousal is in believing her not to be and the act of watching it and masturbating over it must change someone's arousal and boundaries.

when you read the accounts of people who have ended up on charges for owning child pornography or some of the accounts of child abusers it was a slippery slope of exposure that got them there rather than some natural born condition. the percentage of the population who could be dx as paedophiles (if you want to see it as a condition) is probably static but the percentage of people who are aroused by rape, sexual violence, younger and younger people and eventually the idea of 'fucking a child' is increasing.

tbh it's THAT demographic that we need to worry about more than the supposedly 'born that way' paedophiles imo.

sorry angela - yes i agree - child 'porn' is an awful statement but then i don't feel like 'porn' is a neutral term given the levels of violence, coercion and injury involved so for me maybe the child/adult isn't so distinct itms? as in to me a hell of a lot of porn is 'abuse' so the word porn equates to it for me.

but i agree and i will stop using that phrase.

HoneyBadger, some great posts there. I completely agree about the need to distinguish between 'orientations' and other issues e..g sadism, fetishim, propensity to abuse. It reminded me that one of the debates we were having in gay activism back in the early 80s was about whether paedophiles who chose not to act on it could be given some kind of fellowship and support - i.e. if it's an orientation they can't help, but they choose not to act on it, should they still be excoriated? Wouldn't it be better if they felt able to be honest, and maybe receive therapeutic support?

I still don't know how I feel about that one, but I comjpletely agree that the role of pornography in encouraging an insatiable hunger for novelty, and an increasingly objectifying sexuality, as well as an acceptance of sexual sadism, is deeply worrying.

TheHoneyBadger is on fire on this thread. Great posts, thank you.

Bill maloney has made some interesting documentaries exposing those involved in child abuse they are available to watch on youtube. Absolutely heartbreaking the extent that this has and is being covered up.

I think that it is definitely an attempt to turn this into a political party issue when actually this is a cross party issue. More shocked that we're not hearing more about this.
www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedophile-information-exchange-taxpayers-cash-3197625
The PIE were sending publications out of the home office during the 80s - surely that should be investigated.

Has anyone seen the latest update? Sorry I can't link.

On the mail they have a letter from PIE asking for help with a legal matter which HH has written on.

I was previously siding with HH an thinking the DM was using her as a smoke screen but this looks like she has lied about having any involvement with PIE

I still dont understand why she didnt just apologise so it didnt end up with them digging and digging to force an apology or resignation

It doesnt look like the DM are going to let this story fade away.

But from what I can see what she wrote on the letter amounts to: "Can we talk about this on Friday? HH"

That doesn't tell us she was siding with them, helping them, condemning them or anything. Just that she saw the letter and wanted to discuss it with somebody.

could mean, 'can we work out how the fuck to get rid of this latest round of shit from the creeptastic PIE on friday?', could mean anything.

I take your point *h

Posted too soon!

I take your point honey but if that's the case why isn't she shouting it from the nearest rooftop.

If I was in HH's position and had opposed PIE I would be trying to recollect every instance where I had opposed them to show the DM are shit stirring

a) if she does that that's it, every time a tabloid makes up some insinuating shite she's got to jump and answer or be seen as guilty

b) she may not be able to tell the full story without disclosing other people's private information

c) for all we know pressure is on the real culprit in the background to come forward and acknowledge that he/she was the PIE link who kept fighting for their inclusion

d) she might think common sense will prevail and right thinking people will see this for exactly what it is and respect her for not dignifying a tabloid smear campaign with her attention

What recall is she likely to have of this? While she was at the NCCL she ran a number of HUGE cases that changed the law. Probably they loom larger in her recollection, I don't know. I can't imagine she kept any files or anything.

So, as an MP and front-bench Opposition spokesperson, how much of her working day can she afford to spend in archives digging up 30 year old paperwork while journalists look on, smirking?

Since I last posted the man who abused me has been mentioned in the Daily Mail. Fucksticks.

So sorry you suffered at the hands of an abuser, Idiot. How do you feel about seeing his name in the paper?