Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:00 pm  

Cibaman wrote: Sometimes its necessary to answer allegations almost irrespective of the morality of the accuser. The MP's expenses scandal first broke in the Telegraph when a former owner of the paper was serving time for fraud! Even if its only the Mail, Harman needs to either answer the accusations or deny that they are factually accurate and sue. Zelo Street wrote: The case made against its targets by the Mail – SubScribe again – is that "Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt had all worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) in the 1970s at a time when the Paedophile Information Exchange was an affiliate organisation". But, in Shami Chakrabarti's words, it had "infiltrated" the NCCL. Moreover, once the behaviour of the PIE became obvious, the NCCL threw it out. The Mail asserts that its targets "backed" PIE, but they have no evidence to back up the claim. Link Tim Fenton is worth following: this was an early story, but he's done more since. The Daily Mail – bringing you the best pedo-lite coverage on the web.

Cibaman wrote: Sometimes its necessary to answer allegations almost irrespective of the morality of the accuser. The MP's expenses scandal first broke in the Telegraph when a former owner of the paper was serving time for fraud! Even if its only the Mail, Harman needs to either answer the accusations or deny that they are factually accurate and sue. Zelo Street wrote: The case made against its targets by the Mail – SubScribe again – is that "Harriet Harman, her husband Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt had all worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) in the 1970s at a time when the Paedophile Information Exchange was an affiliate organisation". But, in Shami Chakrabarti's words, it had "infiltrated" the NCCL. Moreover, once the behaviour of the PIE became obvious, the NCCL threw it out. The Mail asserts that its targets "backed" PIE, but they have no evidence to back up the claim. Link Tim Fenton is worth following: this was an early story, but he's done more since. The Daily Mail – bringing you the best pedo-lite coverage on the web.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 2:56 pm  

Cibaman wrote:

Sometimes its necessary to answer allegations almost irrespective of the morality of the accuser. The MP's expenses scandal first broke in the Telegraph when a former owner of the paper was serving time for fraud!

Even if its only the Mail, Harman needs to either answer the accusations or deny that they are factually accurate and sue.

Weren't the Nazi's, amongst others, very good at applying guilt by association ?

If that is the case then are we all guilty because since the first signs of life started we are descended from that.

What an absolute ridiculous typical right wing smear story.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:12 pm  

I'm just amazed that there was a group of people who were brazen enough to openly campaign as paedophiles ....

I'm in my mid 40's and while I acknowledge that we have moved on with regard to political correctness and the like, I can't honestly believe that things were so backward during the time in which these allegations against Harman supposedly took place??

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:35 pm  

There was indeed such a group but the "softening up" of the pedophile legislation accusation that the Mail has pinned directly to Harmon relates to the ill thought out initial bill that would have meant that parents who took photographs of their own naked babies and young children (bath time scenes for instance) could in theory have been arrested, tried, convicted and put on the sex offenders list - thats the bit that Harmon and others were arguing against.

Given that The Mail have sexualised a photo of an eight year old in a bikini in the past I would have thought they'd be very much in favour of the lowering of the age of consent to ten years and so by implication would their slavering readership for without them the photos would not be purchased and included on their sidebar of shame.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:51 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

I'm just amazed that there was a group of people who were brazen enough to openly campaign as paedophiles ....

I'm in my mid 40's and while I acknowledge that we have moved on with regard to political correctness and the like, I can't honestly believe that things were so backward during the time in which these allegations against Harman supposedly took place??[/quote]

To invoke old ( ) Jerry Chicken, we do live in very different times.

I do think that few people at that time would really have known the word 'peadophile' and what it meant. It was not common currency and child abuse in general was essentially brushed under the carpet (I'm talking the '70s here).

That only changed in the 1980s.

But equally that's a pretty good explanation of why the likes of PIE got away with infiltrating the NCCL.

Apparently Leon Brittan, when home secretary, refused to make PIE an illegal organisation. That sounds a damned sight more of a political statement to me than Harman et al not knowing about an infiltrating group. But I wouldn't claim that was indicative of Brittan being a peadophile or supportive of them – rather that we collectively didn't have the sensibility to the issue that we have now.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Tue Feb 25, 2014 6:54 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

There was indeed such a group but the "softening up" of the pedophile legislation accusation that the Mail has pinned directly to Harmon relates to the ill thought out initial bill that would have meant that parents who took photographs of their own naked babies and young children (bath time scenes for instance) could in theory have been arrested, tried, convicted and put on the sex offenders list - thats the bit that Harmon and others were arguing against...

And FFS – rightly so.

JerryChicken wrote:

Given that The Mail have sexualised a photo of an eight year old in a bikini in the past I would have thought they'd be very much in favour of the lowering of the age of consent to ten years and so by implication would their slavering readership for without them the photos would not be purchased and included on their sidebar of shame.

The Mail is a disgrace on this. It quite clearly trades on and profits from a pedo-lite approach to underage girls.

And to clarify: I have both written about this in detail – AND linked to it on the internet a number of times, directing it at Mail online addresses and contact points. They ignore it – because they know they're bang to rights on it. But presumably, they also know that they make money from it and don;t want to change that.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:19 am  

There is a very good article behind the paywall in The Times today http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/article4016187.ece about attitudes to sex and the legal battles against a loosening of "morals" by a very vocal minority, many of whom held positions of authority - it all culminated in the Oz trial of course, a copy of which was once brought into our all-boys Grammar School and passed around in great secrecy lest the Head spot it and burn both it and the lad caught with it in his possession, our head being a 1930s throw-back who still despised the fact that three years earlier he'd been banned from using his impressive collection of canes on miscreants. It also mentions one of the most famous album covers of my generation, another publication that was carried around school in a brown paper bag lest the Head spot that too - the famous Blind Faith album of a topless young girl, to a 12 year old it was the sort of album that you wanted in your record collection but knew that your mother would never allow it across the threshold, never mind the fact that this was Blind Faith, Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood etc, it had a naked young girl on the cover who had tits and everything, never has an album been more admired for its cover than its contents since. The naked girl with breasts on show on the quite freely available album cover (in almost every record shop window in 1969) was 11 years old, no censorship ever applied. No-one under the age of 40 years actually understands those times at all.

There is a very good article behind the paywall in The Times today http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/article4016187.ece about attitudes to sex and the legal battles against a loosening of "morals" by a very vocal minority, many of whom held positions of authority - it all culminated in the Oz trial of course, a copy of which was once brought into our all-boys Grammar School and passed around in great secrecy lest the Head spot it and burn both it and the lad caught with it in his possession, our head being a 1930s throw-back who still despised the fact that three years earlier he'd been banned from using his impressive collection of canes on miscreants. It also mentions one of the most famous album covers of my generation, another publication that was carried around school in a brown paper bag lest the Head spot that too - the famous Blind Faith album of a topless young girl, to a 12 year old it was the sort of album that you wanted in your record collection but knew that your mother would never allow it across the threshold, never mind the fact that this was Blind Faith, Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood etc, it had a naked young girl on the cover who had tits and everything, never has an album been more admired for its cover than its contents since. The naked girl with breasts on show on the quite freely available album cover (in almost every record shop window in 1969) was 11 years old, no censorship ever applied. No-one under the age of 40 years actually understands those times at all.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:06 am  

There were actually cases of people who had taken photographs of their children, naked, being taken to court, IIRC.

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:44 am  

Mintball wrote:

There were actually cases of people who had taken photographs of their children, naked, being taken to court, IIRC.

I do remember stories of staff in Boots calling the fuzz in in occasion,when they developed films containing pictures of people's children

Re: Historical sexual abuse charges... : Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:42 am  

Chris28 wrote:

I do remember stories of staff in Boots calling the fuzz in in occasion,when they developed films containing pictures of people's children

And not far removed, I remember a case of a woman who had taken photographs at Pompeii and Boots refused to produce prints for her on the grounds that they were 'pornographic'.