Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
good old Owen Jones :)
Rather like Owen Jones though, seems like a good chap - fair play to him.
But he doesn't have the available RAM at start up to run the 'tears' software
I could've worded this so much better
neither party will come out of it with any credit (despite what the Mail might think). Harman's refusal to just say 'sorry, it wasn't really right' does her no favours. What is it with politicians and that word?
it pins the blame entirely on them. It is not like the Mail will say "great, she has said sorry, let's move on". Especially as she has nothing really to apologise for from what I have seen, this PIE group were around before she joined and they were rightly booted out during her time there.
she now 'regrets' the link with the PIE.
We're getting there
we all regret that a civil liberties group was infliltrated by a bunch of paedos. But how can she say sorry when she was not the one that allowed it?
I bet they didn't. I mean they're awful but I bet they didn't do that.
to Charlotte Church?
But I'm not convinced. I think it may be apoc...aporcri...apo .... made up.
Not sure she was legal when they printed a picture of her in a pair of tight stone-washed jeans
joined in on the radio, offering to take her down the path of sexuality or something.
but there was definitely a countdown thing. I have a feeling it was back when 16 year olds could be on page 3 also, which makes it incredibly creepy.
The closest thing I can think of is some div doing a countdown clock for Charlotte Church's 16th. I think it was alleged during Levenson that it was the Sun that did it, but I don't think it was.
tabloids reported it as "twisted".
and showing us all a page which I'm pretty sure was titled something like 'Hermione is now legal... and single'
after that Brass Eye Nonce Sense episode?
It was the headline news that day and then on page 3 or 5 they had a photo of some famous young girl in a bikini or something. Or something.
is sexy kids.
can someone catch me up on all this?
a group which had associations with the Paedophile Information Exchange, a network of people swapping kiddy porn. The Mail has dredged it up in the wake of Yewtree. The 1970s just seem like a mind bogglingly different world.
designed to help people with abnormal sexual proclivities, so a civil liberties group would be in favour of supporting them. It does seem like there isn't a debate about how to separate the concepts of paedophilia and child abusers, because as soon as anyone tries to start one, they're seem as pro-fiddler.
I'm sure the Mail will treat the issue with the caution and care it demands.
Ij ust made myself laugh bit
There;s someone on here called Full Stop.
You, whoever you are, hve made my day, my life, my year WHO I AM
to know that its michael jackson eating popcorn
DAY TIME PINT - I'M FUCKED!
how come they didn't all just get arrested.
However - here's an interesting thought. A recent report found that paedophilia is a sexual orientation. Google it, I'm sure it'll be there somewhere.
They found that, unlike first thoughts that paedophilia was a mental illness developed through trauma and abuse, it is actually a pretty much fixed orientation that doesn't change. Like being gay, or straight or whatever.
So, surely there should be some kind of support network for these people? Surely it's discrimination to call paedophilia a sickness? I mean, being an active paedo is a very different matter, but that doesn't detract from the fact that people are born that way, just like those who like to fuck animals. Zooaphiles. Or ANIMAL FUCKERS.
Either / or.
followed by some typing"
If a paedophile went to their GP or their therapist and said "I'm attracted to children, I haven't acted upon it but I fear I may one day compulsively do so, I recognise this is bad and I am willing to seek help or do whatever it takes to change my mental state so that the risk of me acting compulsively upon it is minimised as much as possible".
What would happen next?
like heroin addicts are given methodone
It's not actually illegal to think something. Only to do it, bro.
I imagine they would be too scared to go through with it, instead they would bottle it up all their lives and then when they are older they would act upon their uncontrollable desires in a horrible way because they never felt that they could talk about it with anyone.
Anyway, I mean generally, there are some situations in which it is illegal to think something, isn't there? I guess it's at the point at which you write it down (whatever 'it' is). The Government can't read your mind I suppose - not yet anyway.
about paedos. Maybe like in the case of terrorism or radicalisation and stuff like that.
Or wasn't there a story a couple of years ago about some guy writing sexually explicit fantasies about one of Girls Aloud (?!) or something and he got in a bit of trouble. May completely have mis-remembered though.
and I think he was punished under obscenity laws.
Also, Sideshow Bob: "Attempted murder? Now honestly, what is that? Do they give a Nobel Prize for attempted chemistry?"
but in the last year or two I've really come to the mindset that there is no "wrong" view in politics as there equally isn't a "correct" view. The left vilify the right and the right vilify the left but we're all humans, most of us thinking the other side is making the world worse.
The fact that there is a left vs right debate at all is stupid enough. It's not about that anymore. It never really was.
I have some super racist, right wing friends. I don't care. We sometimes argue about politics but they think I'm the bad person. Not them. So what's the difference?
Everyone's thoughts change over time - so why should thinking anything be wrong? Peter Hitchins used to be a proper militant socialist. I don't really know what I'm saying apart from the fact that thoughts - even written down views - are just that. Who cares who's offended. It's someone's opinions. That's all.
Er, tl;dr Think what you like
but it's also true. I've just stopped getting so angry that people could think x or y.
So what. maybe one day I'll think x or y.
I see myself more as an a or b man though,
that would phase you?
it's just that I used to be so furious, and now it's like well, that's a different view. It does annoy me though, yeah.
Talking of that council house benefit scrounger, have a read of this: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/15/opinion/sunday/malik-britains-welfare-queen.html?hp&rref=opinion&_r=2
not our beloved liz
When teh gayz was legalised the age of consent was 21, so understandably there were some people campaigning for it to be lowered. Obviously there was a spectrum of opinions as to how much it should be lowered...
All happening at a time of increasing social liberation/throwing over of 'old' taboos. Don't think PIE was ever more than a handful of grubby anorak weirdos existing on the very fringes of the civil rights movement.
This is the original Telegraph article, which lists the real points that Harman, Dromey and Hewitt need to answer - obviously it didn't get the flame of publicity because it's not the Mail since it came to light in Oct 2012:
For those link averse, or not wanting to give Telegraph clicks the points to address are:
In 1978, she became legal officer for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), which – in its evidence to the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1976 – had said the following:
“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”
To be fair, the NCCL’s quite revolting parliamentary submission was written two years before Harriet joined its staff. But one wonders why she wanted to work for an outfit whose views on sex with minors were known to be extreme, even by the standards of the day.
In 1977, months before the future deputy leader of the Labour Party took up her post, the NCCL was quoted in the Evening Standard on the subject of the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange, the “information” in question being disgusting pictures of children involved in sex acts which members would pass to each other in plain envelopes. “NCCL has no policy on [the Paedophile Information Exchange’s] aims – other than the evidence that children are harmed if, after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, press and court,” said a spokesman.
In April 1978, the NCCL published a briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill that was before Parliament. The author – one Harriet Harman – was worried that the draft Bill placed the onus on adults caught with film or photographs of nude children to show that they were possessed with a view to “scientific or learned study”.
“Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,” she wrote.
Ms Harman maintains that she always opposed child pornography, and is not on record defending belief in “harmless” paedophilia, though it was held by her employers while she worked there. But no such excuse can be made for Patricia Hewitt, who was general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983 – i.e., during the period when it issued the notorious 1976 submission.
In 1982, the future Labour health secretary published The Police and Civil Liberties, in which she discussed the imprisonment of Tom O’Carroll, secretary of the Paedophile Information Exchange, for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. “Conspiring to corrupt public morals is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof,” wrote Hewitt. The fact that O’Carroll was involved in distributing child porn “overshadowed the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution”.
Based on the 1976 statement, getting the NCCl to state to a House of Commons committee that harmless paedophilia exists suggest they were a bit more than 'fringe weirdos'.
that PIE came from the gay rights movement, and when talking about relationships between adults and children, it was more related (so they said) towards people under the age of consent which was 21 at the time I believe. It was only after this that it became obvious they were actually just kiddy fiddlers. And any concerns about child pornography laws was more to avoid people being prosecuted for taking an innocent picture of their child in the bath. This was at a time when there was effectively no child porn law, so they were not asking for it to be relaxed as such, just to ensure that lawful people's liberties would not be infringed.
Just saying, I may be wrong. It is so hard to distinguish the truth from the excuses to bash Harman. It is very tempting I must say, but I think I want to err on the side of caution if it brands someone a pedo-lover.
I get that and I think it's easy to have that interpretation - that the focus was that there were 'children' because of the gay AoC that patently weren't children. The trouble is that such an explanation can't square with them being fringe weirdos that were never really taken seriously and 'only' associates because anybody could apply; which is the current defence.
(By the way, the irony of my username is not lost on me. Blame Madnomad for calling his album that.)
So, before HH joined the NCCL it was already clear that PIE were, in fact, people who wanted to have sex with the under 10s and it had been reported in national newspapers:
"According to a Times legal report from February 1977, there was no need for subterfuge, just an application and a cheque for £4. The prosecutor stated: "He said on the form that he was a paedophile, male, married, 29 years old and attracted to girls between the ages of seven and 13 years." The judge proclaimed himself "horrified" at the existence of PIE."
Also, other charities and pressure groups had started acting against PIE as early as 1976:
"Wolmar had first-hand contact with PIE. In 1976 he began working for Release, an agency helping people with drug and legal problems. Its office at 1 Elgin Avenue in London was a mailing address for PIE... After Wolmar raised questions about PIE it was decided to bring them in for a meeting.
Wolmar's colleagues pressed the man from PIE on the age of consent. Wolmar says that the man said there should be no age of consent. Shocked at the idea of a group advocating sex with babies, he and his colleagues unanimously decided to "boot them out". "
if faced with just the right kid?
Hard to speak for all humans, but I think you're onto something here moker
"There's plenty more fish in the paddling pool"
You just put it in the oven mate
has this just been done because of the Harriet thingy?