Oh to have friends in the Media who smooth away your troubles.
Whilst a s**t storm is raging around accusations of a cover up surrounding accusations of child abuse here is Harriet Harman in the Observer (Guardian) from this Sunday glossing over her PIE associations with the help of a Guardian journalist who suggests that it was the ‘times’, public morals were different then, the general atmosphere of sexual liberation and all that meant people could abuse children with a clean conscience, so supporting PIE in any way should be seen in the context of the times:
You were embroiled in a spat earlier this year with the Daily Mail over your role at the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), at a time when one of its affiliates was the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). How do you think you handled that?
Well, I don’t spend any time at all working out whether I got approval from anybody for how I handled something. The point is accusations and allegations were made and I answered back to speak out for the truth of the situation. I’m not interested in how I handled it. I’m not in the business of handling.
Well, you are. You’re a politician. How you come across on issues – moral, political, historical – is of importance to the voting public. But I wondered how you rated your own performance.
I try not to do too much introspective handling. I answered the allegation. The public can make their own minds up.
What’s it like being suddenly thrust into that kind of media storm?
It’s very unpleasant and really offensive to find that you’ve been alleged to have done something that you would deplore. It’s the nature of the allegation rather than the focus of attention which is the issue.
There has been a shift in public morals over the intervening years. If you were now in the NCCL, it would not be acceptable for the PIE to be affiliated. Do you think you were being asked to comment from today’s perspective on what happened in the 1970s?
By the time I came to NCCL they [PIE] had been denounced. They weren’t allowed to speak at the AGM – the battle had been fought. I heard someone say in relation to the Rolf Harris case, “Oh well, these things were regarded as much more acceptable in those days than they are now.” And I profoundly disagree. Because I think for the young girls who were the victims, it was never acceptable to them. What’s changed is that there has been the beginnings of a recognition that the victims of sexual offences will get justice if they speak out. That’s what’s changed. It was never acceptable to the terrified victims of child abusers.
But that’s not all that’s changed. In the 1970s, in the general atmosphere of sexual liberation, there was part of that liberationist movement that turned a blind eye to the abuse of children and entertained the false notion of consent. At the high point of those debates, there was a tolerance of that idea.
Not by me. It might have been what other people were arguing, but it wasn’t what I was arguing. I’m not answering for the culture at the time. I’m answering for what my views were, and the question of consent to sexual intercourse was very much part of our campaigning around the question of rape and sexual offences. All of those arguments were going on. If a woman says no, she means no.
Other Labour politicians might also look at their associations such as Lord Smith, vice-president of the Campaign for Homosexual Equality (originally rather coy about admitting his position)…the CHE wanting to block certain prosecutions for child abuse:
CHE is delighted to announced that Lord Smith of Finsbury has agreed to become one of our Vice-Presidents. As Chris Smith he was Britain’s first openly gay MP and he’s currently Chairman of the Environment Agency.
A few months later…….
Pink News tells us that in July 2009 this happened:
The Campaign for Homosexual Equality has been disaffiliated from human rights organisation Liberty, allegedly over a motion which called for a time limit on reporting child sex abuse.
The contentious motion read: “We urge the government to introduce a Statute of Limitation which would debar any criminal prosecution in respect of alleged child abuse unless the matter was brought to the attention of the police within five years of the complainant reaching the age of majority.”
The group has claimed that in cases of historic abuse, evidence or acknowledgment of an accused man being gay can damage his chances of acquittal due to homophobia and confusion between homosexuality and paedophilia.
Liberty said…...”In particular, your motion on child sex abuse is also clearly contrary to the objectives of Liberty”
Curiously links to CHE which admit Smith is their Vice-President are missing.
It’s an appalling story but I wonder about the timing… cropping up just as yet another of the paedophiles whom the BBC long protected is shut away. Classic diversion tactic? Revenge? Warning?
I see the BBC, today, have conveniently incorporated the subset of Asian grooming into the higher profile cases involving celebrities and the reports of an alleged cover-up. Muslim grooming is a separate and highly racist problem involving a religious group solely targeting young white girls. Predictably, the BBC seem to be eager to airbrush race from the big picture, well they are when it involves their beloved followers of the religion of peace.
The politicians are very keen on legalising their own “interests and hobbies”. Stuart Hall et al were just ahead of the times! Look at what was illegal in 1965 and look now. Where was the public clamour for perversions to be made “normal”? The age of consent has now been lowered to 16 for males “opening up” lots of new opportunities for PIE and their ilk. Cameron has turned logic upside down with his same-sex “marriage” fiasco while the country racks up more and more debt. Priorities?
The age of consent has now been lowered to 16 for males
In other words, it’s been equalised for all. How does that relate to paedophilia?
Cameron has turned logic upside down with his same-sex “marriage” fiasco
And how is it a fiasco, exactly? Loving couples of the same sex are now able to commit to each other in marriage. In what way is that a fiasco?
you like young boys dont you scott, like that terrorist bomber you thought was hot
Ah, another alias for “Stuart” from which to insult me in lieu of being able to form a coherent argument.
Childish insults may ingratiate you among those Biased BBC members who themselves have never grown up. In the real world, however…
Scott I don`t s`pose u have my hamster do u?
Have you tried looking where you left your dignity? That appears to be missing, too.
Don’t feed the troll.
it worrys me that jihadi scotts hero harriet harman has never apologised for her links to the paedophile information exchange.what sparks terror in my heart is that harriet harmans husband jack dromey who believe it or not is the shadow police minister has also not apologised for his links to p.i.e when he was am officer in that strange civil libertys movement.for heaven sake if labour win the election next year these 2 could governing us.that sends a big chiver down my spine.
just saying.can you confirm that i am not one of scotts fantasy alias.soon scott you will be accusing everybody that makes a comment in this blog of being me,get a grip man.
“soon scott you will be accusing everybody that makes a comment in this blog of being me”
Nope, just the ones you fabricate. Like “Roy” and “Bob”, and now “just sayin'”. There are advantages to your having a rather unique approach to grammar and punctuation…
scott, im not stuart. i wasnt making an insult about you liking young boys, it was just a statement of fact based on your tweets
😉
Well, you can at least reply to individual posts, which is more than Stuart manages, so I’ll give you that.
“i wasnt making an insult about you liking young boys”
Er, you were doing exactly that. Unless “you like young boys dont you” has a completely different meaning on your planet.
I’d like an apology, please.
Will that do, Scotty?
Only if I were looking for more evidence that Biased BBC’s most frequent pseudoymous trolls have a juvenile mindset.
Any person of average intelligence would understand why that response is both inadequate and wholly inappropriate. It seems to be completely in character for you not to.
Now, whoever is hiding behind the pesudonym of “just sayin'”, I deserve an apology. A proper one.
On yer bike, Scott.
Touched a nerve, I see. I guess you understand that your butting in to this thread was inappropriate, but you don’t possess the maturity to admit it.
Was that really necessary?
My, all the immature ones are coming out of the woodwork now.
Perhaps, instead of showing the world how you can make jokes at which even the average schoolboy would turn up their nose, you could scroll up and explain – since ‘CJ’ seems to have gone quiet – how an equal age of consent relates to paedophilia, or how the introduction of same-sex marriage has been a “fiasco”?
If you’re going to make a contribution to this thread, a civil one – and one that addresses those points in particular – would show that you’re more than just a childish troll.
awwwwwww scotty im sorry, want a make up and be friends hug? just keep your hands above the waist
Or you could be an adult and apologise properly instead of contuing to be juvenile.
tell you what, you say sorry for saying a muslim terrorist who was hell bent of committing mass murder was “hot” first and i’ll think about it
I should have known expecting a little child who throws out insults from behind a pseudonym wouldn’t be intellectually capable of understanding what they’d done.
Go you. You’ve insulted someone on the internet. Your life must feel so complete.
so scott, youre not sorry for being sexually attracted to a muslim who attempted to kill as many people as humanly possible, even though, given the opportunity, the above mentioned muslim would have thrown you off a cliff for being a homo and murdered you along with all the rest of the gay community as well.
scott, youre a disgrace not just to the homosexual community, but to humanity as a whole and you should be ashamed of yourself
I’m not going to be lectured to by someone who uses a pseudonym to accuse me of being a paedophile.
You come across as a sad little boy, who flings out anti-gay insults as a means of dealing with his own real world insecurities. If that’s not the case, and you are in fact a responsible adult, demonstrate it: apologise.
i never called u a paedo, you got a guilty mind?
scott, be a man, appologise for your cowardly perverted attraction to homicidal maniacs who wish to commit mass murder
i never called u a paedo
No, the words you used were, “you like young boys dont you scott”
Which is of course completely different. *sigh*
It’s going to be completely useless expecting you to behave like a responsible member of society, isn’t it?
Did anyone catch the discussion on Radio 4 this morning on paedophilia? I switched on around 9.55am to hear a couple of experts saying how widespread sexual abuse was thirty years ago, and how we are experiencing witch hunts today. My impression was that the BBC is sanitising paedophilia by diverting attention to some kind of social need for witch hunts and spreading the charges across a much wider spectrum.,
Another thread descends into a slanging match with Scott.
While you give him the satisfaction of responding, he’ll continue to haunt this site. He’s like Katie Price – while he gets attention, he’ll keep demanding attention. Ultimately the thread turns into a thread about him ( typed with more than a hint of irony).
A quick Google search of Scott revealed that he actually got his own thread on another site (Digital Spy) – at which point he appeared to lose interest. Maybe DV might like to try this approach?
Give him a sticky thread into which he can post as much as his little fingers can muster – and the rest of us can ignore it.
While you give him the satisfaction of responding, he’ll continue to haunt this site
Or, you know, Biased BBC regulars could behave like adults in the first place. I’m not responsible for the bad behaviour and rancid comments of Old Goat, stuart, “Just sayin'”, et al.
But I guess blaming me is easier than taking responsibility and pointing the finger at the real culprits, isn’t it?
Ah yes, I forgot to include Lord Earls Court in the list of rancid individuals. Thanks for the reminder.
Am pleased to welcome the new word “to harmanise”.
Does this mean
a) an ability to get your old man onto an all-women shortlist
b) an inability to explain why pensioners only need a 65p pay increase
c) a willingness to act on behalf of groups that advocate and require yet more paedophile rights to be enacted or militated for
d) an ability to explain why on earth she`d want such a crock of shite as “Deputy Party Leader”-and even play fast and loose with financial regulations in order to achieve this
e)a willingness to abuse Scots with red hair, and not see it as racist.
Harmanising is the portent of the End of Savilisation as we know it.
PS-To Bishop…blagging a free sun-drenched cycle tour around Australia at taxpayer/License fee payer expense, when it could have all been done cheaper had he been sent to cycle around North Wales(which featured more in his life, according to the autobiography)…hat tip to the Daily Mirror for this idea,
thanks just sayin for confirming that i am not you,trouble is scott is getting so paranoid in this blog that i feel like i am being stalked by this strange fellow and soon his delusions about me might get so bad that he might even think that i am alan or david vance going under the alias of stuart.you are one strange guy scott,very strange indeed.
Hey, you’re the one who keeps popping up after ive posted to tell me I’m paranoid. And then concocting aliases with the same flaws in grammar, punctuation and capitalisation to say exactly the same thing.
And yet I’m somehow stalking you? Yeah, right.
i had scott down for more of a bronski beat type of fan
dont leave me this way……….lol
There has been a shift in public morals over the intervening years. If you were now in the NCCL, it would not be acceptable for the PIE to be affiliated. Do you think you were being asked to comment from today’s perspective on what happened in the 1970s?
If ever proof were needed that the Guardian is on a completely different planet – politically and morally – to the rest of the ‘public’, that statement is it.
Absolutely effing unbelievable.
Can’t stop shaking the old gulliver.
http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/academics-push-to-normalize-pedophilia/3664951926001
It is clearly a left-wing staple.