Paedophile Information Exchange and Labour (UK)

ClovenHoof

Bureaucracy gone psycho. When I read something like this I really do wonder what is the actual purpose of civil liberties are in the modern age. Protect the vulnerable or declare open season on them?

All during the Jimmy Savile era.

PIE members were lobbying NCCL officials for the age of consent to be reduced and campaigning for “paedophile love”.

Their view that children were not harmed by having sex with adults appears to have been adopted by those at the top of the civil liberties group.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462604/We-can-t-prove-sex-with-children-does-them-harm-says-Labour-linked-NCCL

Muise...

Your masterful way of smearing a sensitive issue all over a toilet wall of a thread never ceases to amaze me OP.

ClovenHoof

Muise... wrote: »

Your masterful way of smearing a sensitive issue all over a toilet wall of a thread never ceases to amaze me OP.

Raping children is not a sensitive issue. It's a barbaric one.

Muise...

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Raping children is not a sensitive issue. It's a barbaric one.

Conflating it with civil liberties and tabloiding your first nanothoughts on the matter is fairly crude, if not barbaric, too.

ClovenHoof

Muise... wrote: »

Conflating it with civil liberties and tabloiding your first nanothoughts on the matter is fairly crude, if not barbaric, too.

^^^ using word salad does not have the same impact.

Femme_Fatale

The Daily Express makes The Daily Mail look balanced. And reader comments are just gonna be from the tard brigade.

Here's the article from a more balanced, non-reader-comment-facilitating source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Mad stuff in fairness. :eek:

Amirani

This took place about 40 years ago. It's completely wrong of course but so was:

• Eugenics
• Slavery
• Institutionalised Racism
• Lack of Female voting rights
• Institutionalised Homophobia
• Magdalene Launderies
• Lack of divorce rights

Yet all of these things were at one point deemed fine and appropriate by "enlightened" members of society in their time (particularly something like eugenics, which was fully supported by most of the scientific community pre-Nazism). It's great that we have hindsight in looking back at some of these things.

A much more balanced article about the whole affair from the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/28/paedophilia-generation-mail-nccl

Femme_Fatale

NiallSparky wrote: »

This took place about 40 years ago. It's completely wrong of course but so was:

• Eugenics
• Slavery
• Institutionalised Racism
• Lack of Female voting rights
• Institutionalised Homophobia
• Magdalene Launderies
• Lack of divorce rights

Yet all of these things were at one point deemed fine and appropriate by "enlightened" members of society in their time (particularly something like eugenics, which was fully supported by most of the scientific community pre-Nazism). It's great that we have hindsight in looking back at some of these things.

I'm still astounded that there was support for this organisation even as late as the early 80s.
No wonder Savile thrived.

It's actually mad to read all this "what about free speech?" and some liberalism gone nuts... from the 1970s. It's like today.

tritium

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The Daily Express makes The Daily Mail look balanced. And reader comments are just gonna be from the tard brigade.

Here's the article from a more balanced, non-reader-comment-facilitating source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Mad stuff in fairness. :eek:

Jesus some of that stuff is pretty rough and bat sh1t crazy

To be fair the Express and Mail have been running a bit of an agenda on this for a while. Doesn't mean that certain prominent figures don't have some serious soul searching to do though

Ulysses Gaze

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The Daily Express makes The Daily Mail look balanced. And reader comments are just gonna be from the tard brigade.

Here's the article from a more balanced, non-reader-comment-facilitating source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Mad stuff in fairness. :eek:

The BBC is not balanced. Very pro-Labour. And they ignored this story for nearly 2 weeks until it became such big news they had to start covering it.

Muise...

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

I'm still astounded that there was support for this organisation even as late as the early 80s.

From what I've read, the support consisted of allowing PIE to subscribe to the NCCL. They sound a bit like the People's Front of Judea when it comes to organisation and ideology, to be honest, but go on any vaguely left-wing march today and you'll find yourself in some fairly freaky and downright unsavoury company.

Femme_Fatale

Ulysses Gaze wrote: »

The BBC is not balanced. Very pro-Labour. And they ignored this story for nearly 2 weeks until it became such big news they had to start covering it.

Some view it as leftie heaven, others view it as part of the old guard establishment. I think it's somewhere in the middle so I would view it as more balanced than a lot of media outlets.

mike65

Post hippy/freelove mentality run riot really, still its nothing unique to Britain - in Denmark ("consenting") children and (unconsenting) animals were fair game in porn between 1968 and 1980 when common sense kicked in. The only good thing to come out of that era was music and movies the rest was utter sh1te - racists, fascists, commies, beige carpet, Austin Allegros, 3 day weeks, Carlos the Jackal, 98p in the pound supertax, never-ending strikes, IRA, UDA, PLO, RAF etc etc!

Terrible era.

Muise...

mike65 wrote: »

Post hippy/freelove mentality run riot really, still its nothing unique to Britain - in Denmark ("consenting") children and (unconsenting) animals were fair game in porn between 1968 and 1980 when common sense kicked in. The only good thing to come out of that era was music and movies the rest was utter sh1te - racists, fascists, commies, beige carpet, Austin Allegros, 3 day weeks, Carlos the Jackal, 98p in the pound supertax, never-ending strikes, IRA, UDA, PLO, RAF etc etc!

Terrible era.

ah yeah, 1968, the music...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1nX7pX7JhsM

Frank Garrett

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Some view it as leftie heaven, others view it as part of the old guard establishment. I think it's somewhere in the middle so I would view it as more balanced than a lot of media outlets.

You also believe Politics.ie deserves to be trolled because it doesn't pander to lefties like Boards.ie does, s it's no surprise you're defending the BBC.

Nodin

Frank Garrett wrote: »

You also believe Politics.ie deserves to be trolled because it doesn't pander to lefties like Boards.ie does, s it's no surprise you're defending the BBC.

What's wrong there Frank? You seem a tad upset.

BorneTobyWilde

Whole African Continent has no problem with it. And it is 2014.
Are they all wrong. Marrying kids in widespread on african continent.

Lux23

The age of consent is 12 - 14 in other European countries and incest isn't illegal in many too. Still though, I think I like our values regarding sex and children.

And yes the African congress are wrong, young girls shouldn't be forced to marry old men.

BorneTobyWilde

Celine Dion met her husband when she was 11, they became lovers.
I think the issue is love V abuse .
PIE seemed to think they had every right to campaign to win the right to legally abuse kids.

Femme_Fatale

Frank Garrett wrote: »

it's no surprise you're defending the BBC.

Yeh because the BBC is such a cesspit of depravity. How could anyone defend it.

Weird, random post. Don't know what the first weirdo bit of it is about, but maybe it's in relation to something I said one time that has been taken out of context. Politics.ie is full of tards indeed though, both left and right.

porsche959

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Politics.ie is full of tards indeed though, both left and right.

Unfortunately a small number of defenders of child abuse are also active on that website.

PIE may not exist in an organised fashion today, but I have found that there are people on the internet willing to defend child abuse. Why they do so, I can only speculate at.

porsche959

tritium wrote: »

To be fair the Express and Mail have been running a bit of an agenda on this for a while. Doesn't mean that certain prominent figures don't have some serious soul searching to do though

The Mail have an agenda with the current articles, but have done excellent reporting on child abuse issues, e.g. see here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-523706/I-known-Jersey-paedophiles-15-years-says-award-winning-journalist.html

Henry9

NiallSparky wrote: »

This took place about 40 years ago. It's completely wrong of course but so was:

• Eugenics
• Slavery
• Institutionalised Racism
• Lack of Female voting rights
• Institutionalised Homophobia
• Magdalene Launderies
• Lack of divorce rights

Yet all of these things were at one point deemed fine and appropriate by "enlightened" members of society in their time (particularly something like eugenics, which was fully supported by most of the scientific community pre-Nazism). It's great that we have hindsight in looking back at some of these things.

A much more balanced article about the whole affair from the Guardian: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/28/paedophilia-generation-mail-nccl

And don't forget sexual harassment, which was tolerated as normal in the 1970s but is regarded as unacceptable now.
But it was a different time so I don't expect there will be any repercussions today.

The Guardian is anything but balanced on the issue, merely going in to bat for one of their own.

This doozy for example:

Feminists began to learn about child sexual abuse in consciousness-raising groups, the first survey on the extent was done in the US in 1979, and when I began my PhD in 1980 it was not yet on the radar of social workers and police as a significant issue in the lives of children.

Because feminists hadn't yet gotten around to deciding that paedophilia was wrong nobody knew it yet.
Complete and utter nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/28/harriet-harman-non-debate-pie-nccl?commentpage=1

porsche959

I wonder if parties other than Labour will be drawn into this, ho hum.

porsche959

Henry9 wrote: »

And don't forget sexual harassment, which was tolerated as normal in the 1970s but is regarded as unacceptable now.
But it was a different time so I don't expect there will be any repercussions today.

The Guardian is anything but balanced on the issue, merely going in to bat for one of their own.

This doozy for example:

Feminists began to learn about child sexual abuse in consciousness-raising groups, the first survey on the extent was done in the US in 1979, and when I began my PhD in 1980 it was not yet on the radar of social workers and police as a significant issue in the lives of children.

Because feminists hadn't yet gotten around to deciding that paedophilia was wrong nobody knew it yet.
Complete and utter nonsense.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/28/harriet-harman-non-debate-pie-nccl?commentpage=1

That article is indeed nonsense and almost reads like a satire on leftwing feminism. But I would have to say in my experience most feminists are strongly anti-child abuse.

Femme_Fatale

Love how an attack on feminism even gets shoe-horned into a thread about a paedophile's rights movement. :pac:

efb

porsche959 wrote: »

The Mail have an agenda with the current articles, but have done excellent reporting on child abuse issues, e.g. see here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-523706/I-known-Jersey-paedophiles-15-years-says-award-winning-journalist.html

When not posting suggestive pics of teens

porsche959

Yes, Labour politicians need to answer questions about PIE and NCCL, but so do the Tories about Morrison, and the Lib Dems about Smith

http://ianpace.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/yes-labour-politicians-need-to-answer-questions-about-pie-and-nccl-but-so-do-the-tories-about-morrison-and-the-lib-dems-about-smith/

porsche959

efb wrote: »

When not posting suggestive pics of teens

Suggestive pics of teens are sleazy and exploitative, but not child abuse imagery in the legal sense.

PIE was an organisation that lobbied for reducing the age of consent to 4, contained in its membership many practising child abusers and persons involved in the consumption and possibly production of child abuse imagery, and obtained government grants worth £400k in today's money - a matter which hopefully is under police investigation as to what precisely they did with that money.

So, there's really no comparison between the Mail publishing photos of celebrity teens in bikinis - which I agree is wrong and exploitative - and the PIE organisation.

The Mail can be a disgrace at times but when it produces excellent investigate journalism, as in the articles by Eileen Fairweather about connected child abuse networks, then in my view it should be supported.

CrazyRabbit

Muise... wrote: »

From what I've read, the support consisted of allowing PIE to subscribe to the NCCL. They sound a bit like the People's Front of Judea when it comes to organisation and ideology, to be honest, but go on any vaguely left-wing march today and you'll find yourself in some fairly freaky and downright unsavoury company.

Sounds more like the Judean Peoples Front.

porsche959

Islington Care Homes
A chronology of press cuttings.
With thanks to Murun Buchstansangur at spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com.

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/london/islington/islington-care-homes/

Margaret Hodge attempts to talk her way out of Islington paedophile scandal

In yesterday’s Guardian, Margaret Hodge spoke about her time as leader of Islington Council, when it was proved that a paedophile network had been sexually abusing vulnerable children in every one of the council’s children’s homes.

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/margaret-hodge-attempts-to-talk-her-way-out-of-islington-paedophile-scandal/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExesKzD3glY#t=405

efb

porsche959 wrote: »

Suggestive pics of teens are sleazy and exploitative, but not child abuse imagery in the legal sense.

PIE was an organisation that lobbied for reducing the age of consent to 4, contained in its membership many practising child abusers and persons involved in the consumption and possibly production of child abuse imagery, and obtained government grants worth £400k in today's money - a matter which hopefully is under police investigation as to what precisely they did with that money.

So, there's really no comparison between the Mail publishing photos of celebrity teens in bikinis - which I agree is wrong and exploitative - and the PIE organisation.

The Mail can be a disgrace at times but when it produces excellent investigate journalism, as in the articles by Eileen Fairweather about connected child abuse networks, then in my view it should be supported.

It can been seen to legitimise it as it sexualises minors, far worse than what harmen did

Starbordsie

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

The Daily Express makes The Daily Mail look balanced. And reader comments are just gonna be from the tard brigade.

Here's the article from a more balanced, non-reader-comment-facilitating source: http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26352378

Mad stuff in fairness. :eek:

The video contained within that news report is so creepy.

mike65

Guardian article

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/mar/02/how-paedophiles-infiltrated-the-left-harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt

By 1978 PIE felt so confident that its views were gaining backing that it sent every member of the House of Commons and many in the Lords a copy of its booklet Paedophilia – Some Questions and Answers. Almost 200 newspapers and magazines received a press release promoting the event. "They were pretty clever people," recalls one person who came across them at the time. "They were basically the political wing of paedophilia. They were quite intellectual and very plausible."

conorhal

The ‘nothing to see here, they were different times’ brigade seem to have arrived early to this thread. I seem to remember the church making a similar argument.

The nub of the whole 'they were different times' argument essentially seems to revolve around posessing a rather morally ambiguous attitude to the actual crime (which was as illegal at the time as it is now), and the reaction to it seems entirely dependent on who the criminal is. Witness the plaudits and endless defense of disgusting creatures like Roman Polanski. That case typifies the ambivalence in certain quarters to pedophilia when it’s a liberal darling involved. There is a certain Roosevelt style, ‘he may be a bastard, but he’s our bastard’ myopia involved that shines a light on the real attitudes to child abuse and actual level of concern about it from certain quarters. In that regard the reaction of the Guardian brigade is no different to the reaction of the church, close ranks, refuse to acknowledge a mistake and claim ignorance of the blatant facts.

As for Harriet Harmon, I don’t think she supports pedophiles. I do however think that this entire debacle is a prime example of ideological Marxist groupthink that assumes any group that self identify as an ‘oppressed minority’ and support ‘free sexual expression’ must be all right with us. This groupthink lead to a failure to examine exactly who it was that they had just gotten into bed with.
Such poor judgment and lack of intellectual rigueur should have automatically triggered and apology, that Harmon refuses to offer one says a lot about her.
Harmon belongs in some smoky back room waving a copy of Das Capital about as she argues with the six other members of her revolutionary collective about who’s turn it is, according to the division of labor, to make the tea. Certainly she belongs nowhere near the levers of power, and it’s frightening that she was ever a minister.

Femme_Fatale

I think "Times are different" is pretty valid when there was a high dearth of education.
In this case though, that doesn't apply - it happened during more aware times. If anything, it was educated people defending paedophilia in order to show how enlightened and right-on they were. Far more revolting IMO than people defending something due to being genuinely ignorant and uneducated.

RDM_83 again

Muise... wrote: »

Conflating it with civil liberties and tabloiding your first nanothoughts on the matter is fairly crude, if not barbaric, too.

It is related to civil liberties in this case though as I presume thats why they were involved as they didn't want certain relationships criminalised.

the daily mail is a bit of a rag but it does have actual investigative journalism and though i read the guardian everyday it can not be considered as balanced in regards to the labour party.

This story and the two politicians involved in it raises the question can it be a smear campaign if its actually the truth remember she denied knowledge and support but its been shown she signed of on letters in support. I fully believe that if those involved had been in a religious think tank or right wing associated party the posters reactions would be utterly different.

ClovenHoof

Interesting how all the sanctimonious sensitive liberals at the start of this thread lost their smuggery as more details of this horror circus emerged.

No wonder Savile got away with it...it was 'too sensitive' a subject to be dealt with via arrest and prosecution.

or in direct language.

stmol32

This is gas, the daily Mail has been trying to manufacture some outrage about this complete non story for a few weeks now.

They're getting increasingly desperate now and it's hilarious to watch.

Muise...

RDM_83 again wrote: »

It is related to civil liberties in this case though as I presume thats why they were involved as they didn't want certain relationships criminalised.

the daily mail is a bit of a rag but it does have actual investigative journalism and though i read the guardian everyday it can not be considered as balanced in regards to the labour party.

This story and the two politicians involved in it raises the question can it be a smear campaign if its actually the truth remember she denied knowledge and support but its been shown she signed of on letters in support. I fully believe that if those involved had been in a religious think tank or right wing associated party the posters reactions would be utterly different.

I think the only smear campaign is the OP insinuating that civil liberties as a concept should be thrown out because some 70s idiots with more ideology than sense let themselves be associated with paedophiles.

Frank Lee Midere

stmol32 wrote: »

This is gas, the daily Mail has been trying to manufacture some outrage about this complete non story for a few weeks now.

They're getting increasingly desperate now and it's hilarious to watch.

It's hardly a non story.

I'm increasingly beginning to believe that the opposition to child rape is ideologically based.

Right wingers ( in particularly the Catholic Church) bad.

Left wingers. Good.

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

It's hardly a non story.

I'm increasingly beginning to believe that the opposition to child rape is ideologically based.

Right wingers ( in particularly the Catholic Church) bad.

Left wingers. Good.

Well count me out of your binary system; I hate all rapists and all wingers.

Frank Lee Midere

porsche959 wrote: »

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/operation-greenlight/london/islington/islington-care-homes/

http://spotlightonabuse.wordpress.com/2013/04/28/margaret-hodge-attempts-to-talk-her-way-out-of-islington-paedophile-scandal/


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExesKzD3glY#t=405

Remarkable that there has been so little reaction to those posts.? Does any one seriously think you would get 0 thanks if these links were to involve the Catholic Church or Tories?

I personally believe that there were well connected pedo networks in the UK - involving high level civil servants, politicians of all parties, BBC, MI5 etc - but they are never going to investigate it either the kind of tribunals used here.

Frank Lee Midere

Muise... wrote: »

Well count me out of your binary system; I hate all rapists and all wingers.

I am including you in your binary system - which isn't mine. Harmen is exposed by the daily mail so it can't be true.

No concern about the child victims.

Muise...

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

I am including you in your binary system - which isn't mine. Harmen is exposed by the daily mail so it can't be true.

No concern about the child victims.

How is it mine?

Femme_Fatale

Has anyone said anything to indicate they have no concern for the victims or that it should be laid to rest because it was liberals involved?

ClovenHoof wrote: »

Interesting how all the sanctimonious sensitive liberals at the start of this thread

That didn't happen so sorry to disappoint you. One person commented (understandably) on the salacious way you presented the story, nothing more.

PopePalpatine

Muise... wrote: »

I think the only smear campaign is the OP insinuating that civil liberties as a concept should be thrown out because some 70s idiots with more ideology than sense let themselves be associated with paedophiles.

The Daily Wail themselves aren't too keen on civil liberties, either. :rolleyes:

Irish Guitarist

Years ago I read a newspaper article about a Carlow born paedophile campaigner being arrested. I thought he was the head of some tiny operation with maybe ten members. The idea of anyone publicly admitting to being a paedophile and campaigning for his 'rights' seemed ridiculous. It turns out it was the chairman of PIE.

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/carlowpeople/news/paedophile-rights-campaigner-jailed-for-having-child-porn-27020080.html

WilyCoyote

I lived in London in the late 60s and early 70s. A spokesman for PIE regularly appeared in the Press. The media had a kind of nudge nudge wink wink attitude to the whole affair. And he wasn't a bit shy in his exhortations of PIE.
In this day and age he would have his collar felt as he praised the right of "young love" at Speaker's Corner - where he often spouted on Sunday afternoons.

RDM_83 again

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

Has anyone said anything to indicate they have no concern for the victims or that it should be laid to rest because it was liberals involved?

That didn't happen so sorry to disappoint you. One person commented (understandably) on the salacious way you presented the story, nothing more.

STMOL32's post is only a few posts above your own.How does it read to you.

Muise... wrote: »

I think the only smear campaign is the OP insinuating that civil liberties as a concept should be thrown out because some 70s idiots with more ideology than sense let themselves be associated with paedophiles.

Have you actually following this story at all? Its pretty clear that Harman thinks there is a smear campaign against her.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

I know this is an irish message board but to those of us with an interest in UK politics you can't simply dismiss Harman and Hewit as idiots with more ideology than sense as you do, because if your correct it says a lot about uk labour (harman is deputy leader after all).

In terms of the meat of this argument it makes you wonder if they just jumped on every band wagon as the proposals they endorsed seem either criminally stupid or something darker and as the bbc article points out its not like the pfi were free from controversy at the time.

Muise...

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Have you actually following this story at all? Its pretty clear that Harman thinks there is a smear campaign against her.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

I know this is an irish message board but to those of us with an interest in UK politics you can't simply dismiss Harman and Hewit as idiots with more ideology than sense as you do, because if your correct it says a lot about uk labour (harman is deputy leader after all).

In terms of the meat of this argument it makes you wonder if they just jumped on every band wagon as the proposals they endorsed seem either criminally stupid or something darker and as the bbc article points out its not like the pfi were free from controversy at the time.

I don't follow.

I posted in defence of the idea of civil liberties, which the OP seemed to be flinging out with the bathwater, much like the way people give out about "Health and Safety" when it's stupid human errors and regulations at fault, not the idea of proper planning and minding ourselves.