Groups who call LGB Alliance hate group now praising former member of Paedophile Information Exchange

[334bu]

Nice ☹️

After looking into PIE on wiki, it is mind boggling how close they came to power. I imagine some other movements have looked and learned.

Wiki states that PIE submitted evidence to the Home Office's 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.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I was a very young child back then and knew nothing about these things until I was adult.I can't remember when I first heard the word paedophile. It was very little talked about before the late 80s, IIRC. What was talked about a lot was equal rights for all sorts of oppressed groups. The old view that old white men knew best was being vigorously challenged. The pill had led to sexual liberation and sex wasn't confined to marriage any more (not that it ever had been, but there was less shame and stigma). Gay male sex was decriminalised. It took a lot longer to get clear recognition that not everybody was benefiting from all this. My impression is that during the brief but intense period when progressives were earnestly supporting the schoolkids who guest edited Oz, leading to a prosecution for obscenity, they genuinely believed it might be oppressive to stop young people expressing themselves sexually. This is obvious nonsense to those who live in the real world and know that paedophiles and children can't have a consensual healthy sexual relationship. But back then the Generation Gap was much talked about, Mary Whitehouse was a figure of fun and being square was unforgivable.

A lot of this was confused to people particularly with relation to teenagers - they were sometimes thought of as children but not at all the same in terms of sexuality - teens are very much interested in sex and are physically fertile in a way that children aren't.

Once you have the opening up of sexual taboos and the idea that sex is just natural and no big deal (and that's the crux of it all I suspect) it can seem logical that teens who are interested in sexual relationships should be allowed to have them. Why set an arbitrary age of 16 when an individual might be interested at 14, or 18?

And once you go down that road, it's very easy for a naive person to say, well most 11 year olds won't be keen on that so there is no point disallowing it anyway, so long as consent is required. Especially if you have been influenced to think that concern about teens involves in the sex scene comes out of not wanting gay teen males to be somehow influenced by older men.

But so much of this comes down to the question of how important or significant sex actually is. The sexual revolution basically said it's just a leisure activity without real consequences. That works against seeing it as serious in any context.

A lot of the original twitter comments have been deleted after the backlash but almost all the comments on FB are positive under the article. I wonder if ScotsGay and their cohorts are deleting any negative comments on there?

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g
My impression is that during the brief but intense period when progressives were earnestly supporting the schoolkids who guest edited Oz, leading to a prosecution for obscenity, they genuinely believed it might be oppressive to stop young people expressing themselves sexually.

Bless their hearts, they knew nothing about us! And we could tell the difference between a confused would-be grown-up and a dirty old man in his twenties, too.

I was in the interesting position of not only knowing several of the adolescents who'd helped produced that issue of Oz, but also being at school with and friends with the daughter of the Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions who was responsible, against his better judgement, for the prosecution. (His view was that they ought to have gone for the issue before that one, for the obscenity of which which they'd have been able to make a far better case.)

I doubt very much that any of those young artists I knew thought of it as anything more serious than cocking a snook at their elders, on the whole. It was obviously great fun to do, and a terrific boost to the ego being taken seriously in the adult world like that -- a bit like my own anarchist publication at school, which I enjoyed enormously without in the least thinking it might have serious ramifications. I don't think people of sixteen these days have the slightest idea how heady seeing your work in print was; social media has made it commonplace, but back then it was not at all usual for someone of sixteen to see their work in a national publication.

Whether Felix Dennis had any nefarious intent I would hesitate to judge: my bet is not, but I'm biased.

(And I do know that bootleg copies of the Schoolkids Oz nicked from the store of confiscated matter, to which we mysteriously gained access there were stacks of the blasted things all over the unfortunate ADPP's flat sold at a good price. Shocking really.)

I was a child in the 70s. Even I knew (and I remember this when I was in Brownies) that these were dirty, bad men that did bad things to children.

And adults at the time ‘didn’t see’ this huh (or choose not to care these days)?

I was one of the many, many people who was warned never to be alone with Savile under any circumstances and it was better simply to leave if he was there, that the Hairy Pancake was a bit iffy, and that John Peel was a great guy and a good laff but you needed to keep a bit of an eye on him. But, as my friend who told me these things before we went to a particular party advised me, "you're absolutely fine with Cliff Richard: he's a gentleman."

[quote OhHolyJesus]Here are the receipts

mobile.twitter.com/caithness_pf/status/1199762771820367873[/quote]
So creepy.

I keep noticing members of PIE and PIE supporters turning up in a new guise. I hardly need to mention what that is, do I?

In Wiki, it appears that when a PIE meeting at a hotel was leaked, that angry mothers turned up. Also the EDL turned up! This was after a survey showed that PIE members sexually favoured girls from 8 to 11 years old and boys from 11 to 15 years of age.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

I wonder if current MRA 'progressive' groups such as Amnesty would say that those mothers who didn't want their 8 year child discussed by or involved with paedophiles in any sexual way should have just been dismissed as hateful right wingers? Because of the EDL protesting at the same time.

I ask this because Amnesty and others are attempting similar smearing by association today. Groups such as Amnesty Ireland are smearing people (such as women and mothers) who are concerned for their rights and their children's rights in relation to other issues at the moment. Amnesty, among others, are saying this is because right wing groups are also protesting about those issues. Could this possibly be to shut those women and LGB people down and try to deflect the PR? Throw mud so to speak? I wonder if they would also have similarly attempted to disingenuously smear the mothers who were against paedophilia, because the EDL were there too?

Could it be that some very unscrupulous people may have studied and learned from previous campaigns how to handle issues which would not have broad approval? You gotta shut down women and mothers! No debate, reason or daylight. Working wonders for them in their influence with legislators. No voice allowed to be heard or to speak up for those being put under the kibosh.

Depressingly, most of those links including the key one with receipts now not working. They key link for receipts now says:

"This Tweet from @caithness_pf has been withheld in response to a report from the copyright holder. "

Clearly someone or someones is trying very hard to stop this story getting out.

Maybe someone archived it.

In all fairness, when you click on that and it refers to attraction to a 12 year old child, it raises your antennae just a tad. I remember when Julia Long called out a couple of people on stage and audience on this issue - sexualisation of a child - and far from people addressing that issue, she was removed from the venue.

To an observer of the footage, she seemed to be the only one not comfortable with the sexualisation of a child. The child being smack bang on the age that the old survey by members of The Paedophile Information Exchange stated they are sexually attracted to. 11 to 15 for boys, wasn't it?

Here you go xxyzz and Cailleach1:

If a link doesn't seem to be available, do a Google search and then look in the Google cache:

<a class="break-all" href="https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tNTJdmKKiuYJ:twitter.com/caithness_pf/status/1199762771820367873+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b-d" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tNTJdmKKiuYJ:twitter.com/caithness_pf/status/1199762771820367873+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk&client=firefox-b-d

But I've put it in an archive to be on the safe side:

archive.fo/ScMJl

Thanks. The first pressreader link within the link with the photo doesn't work, but the description makes it clear what should have been there.

I know that most trans people and gay people want to be left alone to lead decent and worthwhile lives but these ones who attack women for being non-compliant, well, it's extremely disappointing how often you can find a PIE, or simliar, connection.

Apart from the young woke thugs who wear hoodies and premeditate physical attacks on women old enough to be their grandmothers, of course; PIE was disbanded before they were born. But I never sure such bullies are actually trans rather than larping: none of my trans friends behaves in this delinquent way.

Thanks, nauticant.

Yes, women are under attack. Present and future. And the past wasn't anything to write home about either.

A few years ago if you could show an activist that they were somehow associating with PIE or similar they'd jump like a scalded cat and go out of their way to put as much distance as possible between themselves and that association. But these days, it's common for the response to be to hurl abuse, block, and to carry on.

The PIE mindset is making inroads.

In the PIE Chairperson's Annual Report for 1975–1976, 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.

From that Wiki. Their ship may just have come in! Such groups are extremely happy for safeguarding to be broken down. Get rid of women's voices and castigate them and any other voices calling for child protection as the far right. And Bob is your auntie's live-in lover!

I vaguely remember this article, but can't read it now because paywall.

www.heraldscotland.com/news/12627513.tangled-web-that-distracts-attention-from-real-black-magic-circle/