Paedophile Information Exchange and Labour (UK)

efb · 03-03-2014 08:11AM

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 · 03-03-2014 09:06AM

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 · 03-03-2014 11:43AM

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 · 03-03-2014 12:33PM

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 · 03-03-2014 01:31PM

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 · 03-03-2014 02:17PM

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 · 03-03-2014 02:20PM

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 · 03-03-2014 03:12PM

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... · 03-03-2014 03:18PM

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 · 03-03-2014 03:21PM

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... · 03-03-2014 03:27PM

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 · 03-03-2014 03:27PM

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 · 03-03-2014 03:30PM

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... · 03-03-2014 03:31PM

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 · 03-03-2014 03:55PM

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 · 03-03-2014 04:11PM

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 · 03-03-2014 04:16PM

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 · 03-03-2014 05:44PM

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 · 03-03-2014 09:43PM

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... · 03-03-2014 09:50PM

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.

Henry9 · 03-03-2014 10:04PM

porsche959 wrote: »

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.

Of course they are. As are most people, if not nearly everybody.
But I find it mind boggling the suggestion that society had to sit around and wait for the feminists to finish 'debating' the issue to know it was a problem.

Henry9 · 03-03-2014 10:09PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

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

The wagon circling Guardianistas brought feminism into it, I'm merely pointing out the absurdity of it.

Henry9 · 03-03-2014 10:11PM

conorhal wrote: »

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.

Nail on the head I think.

I can imagine the reaction of the Guardian if it was someone else involved, oh... say a Radio 1 DJ.
Harman would be leading the lynch mob.

RDM_83 again · 03-03-2014 10:33PM

Muise... wrote: »

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.

Hmmm ok but when your saying that the only smear campaign is the OP's post when one of the centres of this controversy has alleged a smear campaign against her its hardly clear and you can't dismiss those involved as not being worthy of attention they are both very powerful people.

qThere is a debate to be had about about freedom/civil liberties and the protection of the vulnerable and where to draw the line. To me whats interesting is the letter written by that choir master to which Hewit replied actually had a valid concern when the council was being influenced to some extent by those with a very sinister agenda but the op's post isn't the way to do it (edit)

Muise... · 03-03-2014 10:44PM

RDM_83 again wrote: »

Hmmm ok but when your saying that the only smear campaign is the OP's post when one of the centres of this controversy has alleged a smear campaign against her its hardly clear and you can't dismiss those involved as not being worthy of attention they are both very powerful people.

qThere is a debate to be had about about freedom/civil liberties and the protection of the vulnerable and where to draw the line. To me whats interesting is the letter written by that choir master to which Hewit replied actually had a valid concern when the council was being influenced to some extent by those with a very sinister agenda but the op's post isn't the way to do it (edit)

Sorry - I meant here, in this thread, but since then many smears have been smeared in a smeary mess.

porsche959 · 03-03-2014 11:41PM

The Daily Mail is leading tomorrow on a story that an aide to David Cameron has been arrested on allegations of possesion of child abuse images.

I hope that those who have dismissed the Daily Mail as engaged in witch-hunts on Labour people will now reflect carefully.

porsche959 · 04-03-2014 04:17PM

WATCH: Cameron Speaks on Child Porn Arrest Aide

The PM says he is “profoundly shocked” by Patrick Rock’s arrest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xN_8CT3-_LM&app=desktop

Temptamperu · 04-03-2014 04:28PM

Along with whatever years they get they should be castrated as well. They dont just rape these children they ruin them emotionally for the rest of there lives while mister pedo out of prison in some cases 4-7 years

porsche959 · 04-03-2014 04:44PM

Temptamperu wrote: »

Along with whatever years they get they should be castrated as well.

If you are referring to chemical castration, I think I read somewhere it is not effective and there are objections on human rights grounds.

Temptamperu wrote: »

They dont just rape these children they ruin them emotionally for the rest of there lives while mister pedo out of prison in some cases 4-7 years

In some cases victims lives are ruined, others go on to live productive and successful lives. Some victims initially recover well with no after effects, then something can happen that triggers bad memories.

Temptamperu · 04-03-2014 05:27PM

No not chemical castration take there balls, Tyler Durden style.

Paedophile Information Exchange and Labour (UK)

Comments