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.

Exactly, Blu.

I find it quite shocking to realise that my life experience is "history" for other people, and to see it being analysed in the way that people analyse history....

Naive of me to be shocked, obviously- but still.....

Libertarianism is the bit around the back where the far left and and the far right meet each other coming the other way, isn't it? The self-indulgent's parlour. Where they both think they'll come out on top in their own vision of righteousness.

Interesting times. Particularly as it resulted in a wholesale disengagement with mainstream politics by the young. And they don't even have the kind of grass roots stuff as explained on these threads to turn to anymore. Libertarianism begat individualism. How beautiful.

Really interesting post CrotchMaven.

I think there is a lot in what Mantorana said earlier in the thread: that people were tying themselves in knots having to believe in the right of people to make a case for themselves and to speak about what they believed / wanted, without actually supporting their beliefs, and / or while finding them repellent. It's possible that NCCL members held this position rather than actually supporting PIE.

Free speech was all the rage and easy when it was defended for the right for the publication of Lady Chatterley, homosexuals, civil liberties campaigners, Oz Magazine etc. Nowadays we have 'hate speech' to make it easier for us to support free speech for all, beyond our old friends and encompassing the least liberal, most pernicious would-be moral dictators.

'I COMPLETELY AGREE!! Why is this not front page news??'

It has been front page news for several days' running in the Mail and is tomorrow again.

I think the reason there has been such a silence is because it involves Labour people.

The Mail put it on the front page and there was silence. I think the Mail knew there would be silence, so it put it on the front page again, and still there was silence. So it put it on the front page again and eventually other papers were forced to discuss it and Harriett Harman spoke about it to Newsnight.

"It's possible that NCCL members held this position rather than actually supporting PIE."

Yes- that's how it was. Like giving the BNP a platform at the last election.

Hey Claig! What kept you? This thread is 4 days old....
Ah well, you're here now.

Did anyone see Harman's interview on Newsnight tonight?

Another important question to ask is why is it only the Daily Mail that did it, since it is an old story that all the other journalists and newspapers have known about for years?

'Hey Claig! What kept you? This thread is 4 days old....'

I have been looking on "In the News" section, but there is nothing there. Silence.

So I just saw it now on "Am I Being Unreasonable".
I am surprised that it is even on here. I expected silence.

But the Mail knew there would be silence so it kept printing it on the front page until the silence would become deafening.

Haven't read whole thread yet. Will read it. But glad to see that lots of posters are disturbed by this silence.

I do actually think that HH et al would have thought very hard about this stuff, even if they weren't aware of the detail of the PIE stuff at the time. But the free speech stuff was not backed on a whim. Actually, I have read some PIE stuff (it's out there on the net) and, whilst with a 2014 eye, it is abhorrent, it is actually quite well argued, if truth be told. These paedophiles really belive what they are saying, you know? This isn't (always) a baser instinct thing practiced by half-wits who can't string a sentence together.

But just as I support abortion on demand to term because it is a logical (and uncomfortable) extension of my belief in bodily autonomy for women, I can imagine (whilst not necessarily agreeing with) a belief in free speech resulting in reluctant acceptance of PIE.

And, yes, there was a back of the free love thing that did result in expanding sexual boundaries and autonomy. And, yes, largely espoused by men. Is that for another thread?

It is worth bearing in mind that the "silence" is because the other papers know it's bullshit.....

Paedophiles are sick. What they believe is sick and no one should give them a figleaf of respectability.

Harman said

"When I was at NCCL there were around 6,000 members and nearly 1,000 affiliated organisations of which PIE was one."

Allowing affiliation in any sense is giving them a figleaf of respectability in my opinion.

Can you imagine if an organisation like that was affiliated to a political party or to a trade union? What would the public think?

'It is worth bearing in mind that the "silence" is because the other papers know it's bullshit.....'

Why silence? Why not state that it is bullshit immediately? Why let it run on the front page of one of the highest selling newspapers in the country to be seen by millions of people, with silence about it everywhere else, and not state immediately that it is bullshit?

I agree, Claig. Like UKIP and their attitude towards immigrants and those with disabilities, perhaps?

When I said ^^, I didn't mean I agreed. I meant I could see how the situation came about. f you believe in free speech, then it should be free speech for all, yes? Funny how it all ended up.

This organisation was affiliated in some way to the NCCL. That has nothing to do with free speech.

'Like UKIP and their attitude towards immigrants and those with disabilities, perhaps?'

But if the Mail publishes anything like that, there is no silence
Other newspapers will say that the Mail is publishing bullshit.

Well done Laura Kuennsbeurg.

She must have asked Harman about 5 times just to say "with the benefit of hindsight, it was wrong".

Harriet Harman couldn't say bring herself to condemn the association. 5 times she was asked, 5 times she refused. Absolutely disgusting.

Yes, I was very impressed with Laura Kuensberg. It was a very good interview. Impressed with the BBC and Newsnight.

The public need to know just how much of a stance she allegedly took on turning a blind eye to pedophiles.

It won't matter that much to her. She's in just about the safest Labour seat imaginable. But it will reflect poorly on Labour as a whole. They have too many skeletons in their closet and I imagine a lot more will come out between now and next May.

I was 16 in 1975 and would agree with those who are posting about the weirdly awful sexual politics of the time.

The swinging 60s didn't really swing for the majority. The sexual revolution happened in the 70s. A lot of babies got thrown out with the bathwater; yes there may have been openess and the pill but there were also expectations of being sexually available, being up for it, groping was normal. Restraints on behaviour which applied in earlier decades had gone-good riddance to many of them I suppose but some good things too were lost.

I had heard of the PIE in the 70s.I remember them being mentioned in the press. I'm a fairly worldly , fairly sophisticated 50 plus now. In the 70s I was not part of any liberal,metripolitan elite but I definitely recall them being credible enough to have filtered through to the conciousness of a teenager in rural Scotland. I suspect probably via a mixed bag of things like Cosmopolitan,NME,Private Eye ,The Observer and New Statesman.

The argument I recall hearing was there could be consenting relationships between intelligent children and sensitive, intelligent adults. It's a warped combination of Lolita and "Socratic" love as the PIE saw it. It's an argument that still occasionally gets trotted out today.

Why in earth didn't Harriet condemn pie in those interview.
It's bizarre.

What on earth was she thinking, protecting ???

yanbu

and I dont care if it was a long time ago either

but, I almost cant beleive its true IFSWIM???

blu - yes, I was thinking of Joe Orton's diaries as I was reading this thread. Today I think he may well have been regarded as a paedophile though I doubt if he saw himself that way. (How old were the boys? Early teens, iirc.)

John Peel has been condemned in some quarters because his first wife was 15 when they got married and he was 26. This was perfectly legal in Texas where he was at the time. How far do we go when reviewing the events of the past by present day standards? [genuine question]