What grinds my gears...

[FoxyPV]

People who make the same mistake over and over again, even when the pattern has been pointed out to them.

[Captain...]

Typo!!

 

Smear campaign? Come on, nothing they have printed isn't fact, I don't like these words (same as political football) that politicians now trot out when they want to avoid talking about something or trying to defend something they have done, Sami Cahkrabarti had no problem offering a forthright apology for the group being linked and so should Harman, it was on her watch, it happened, it shouldn;t be swept under the carpet. Peadophile Information Exchange, FFS. No wonder they werent fit to govern when they don;t spot that as an affililaite organisation for 5 years plus.

 

On the phone now but you can find it easily, just google Harman letter PIE whatever and you'll see the signed letter lobbying parliament for leniency on child porn.

 

Other than that I can't go through another debate with you on this/under age sex as the last one made me feel ill and I just can't do that again.

 

It is clearly a smear campaign, you don't have to print lies, just by repeatedly making the association with Harman, the NCCL and PIE, it is a smear, not saying that is exclusive territory of the Mail, but this is a perfect example of it. The article I read in the mail, never mentioned the letter, I found this in the Telegraph:

 

 

Amid growing public concern about adults preying on children, the Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s.

NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions†and “increase censorshipâ€.

She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.

Her submission states: “Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations.

“We suggest that the term 'indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.â€

It adds: “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed.â€

Miss Harman left NCCL in 1982 when she was elected MP for Camberwell and Peckham, by which time several members of PIE had been jailed for conspiracy to corrupt public morals.

A spokesman for Miss Harman said: “She has always opposed child pornography and has never supported PIE and to suggest that she did is untrue and misleading.

“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.â€

The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.â€

However press cuttings from 1983 make it clear that it was still considered an “affiliate groupâ€.

 

 

Sounds pretty bad...

 

...but the bit I have highlighted is the key, now it is not entirely clear what they are trying to say, and have confused the matter by adding the (a) and (b) and the semi colon. Now I first read it as having pictures of children partially or semi naked should not be classed as indecent, unless they have been caused physical or emotional distress. Then I read it again as the second clause saying that no picture would be classed as indecent unless you can prove they were harmed, regardless of how explicit it is.

 

I think the first interpretation is the one they meant, because the second one is just plain wrong. If so and they were campaigning for clarification on the definition of an indecent image of a child, then their definition, whilst not well worded, isn't incorrect. Basically they are saying that a picture of a naked child is not automatically classed as indecent, and by owning such a picture you are not automatically comitting an offence. Then they are right. There are photos of me naked as a child, does that make them indecent? I own a photo of a naked boy, he is swimming underwater chasing a dollar bill. Is that picture indecent? Of course not.

 

If they are arguing for the rights of paedophiles to own and buy such images then that is obviously wrong, but that is not made clear, the other thing that alludes to the motivation is the statement at the start of the bit I've quoted. That the new law could lead to "absurd prosecutions". Such as a family member being prosecuted for taking a naked picture of their child or someone owning Nevermind on CD. Taking that letter at its most basic level, all it is saying is that a picture of a naked child is not automatically classed as indecent, it doesn't mean it is a decent image, just that nudity can be innocent. How this definition fits with the rest of the law and the distribution of obscene materials, I don't know, but despite how it first reads it is not as damning as first appears.

Edited 25 February 2014 by Captain Pancake Face

[Alf Bentley]

 

Yes it was a typo, I disagree she didn't want to decriminalise it though, lobbying and signing a letter stating that judges should be more lenient for me and stating that indecent images of childen where they haven't been harmed for me is doing just that, if you disagree fine but thats a matter of opinion.

 

That link is dreadful but no one in government now is responsible for that, Thatcher also wanted Jimmy knighted remember? But fact is this is the current deputy of the Labour party so it is far more newsworthy that something dragged up from a politician in the 70's (not that Labour could claim any moral highground on that anyway)

 

It will be very dirty, from all sides, CPF talks about smears but if you think the Mail are bad to Labour just pick up a Daily Mirror any day of the week, just as bad if not worse and a paper like that still has a lot of influence in the North.

 

Just watching the news and she is one step closer to an apology, she regrets it now, imagine we'll get something at some point tomorrow.

 

One other thing, if this was a Caroline Flint or an Andy Burnham the press wouldnt be half as bad, it's because its Harperson people will take the ball and run, she's one of the biggest hypocrites British politics has ever seen, she shouts about closing private schools then sends her own children to one, she rants on about all women shortlists then drops her campaign when her husband wants a seat in parliament, she moans about the class system then uses her family ie (Countess of Longford or Lady Fraser) to make sure she is photopgraphed at numerous elite events to flash off the champagne socialist fraternity.

 

Can't comment on the detail as I've not had time to look into it, but if she lobbied for greater leniency, then that clearly is not wanting decriminalisation, just lower sentences (depending on circumstances, I assume). I'm sure you'd disagree with that too - and I would in many cases (serious or repeat offenders, those unwilling to change etc) - but lenient sentencing for a crime is not decriminalisation! What is or is not an indecent image of a child? Many cases are clear, but there are grey areas. There was a furore over this a couple of years back, when a mother was arrested for taking naked photos of her very young child; likewise an art photographer/mother, I think.... If you had a baby son and gave your mother a cute naked bath shot, would you be a paedophile? If "not being harmed" includes not being embarrassed, I might agree with HH, though I've never taken such photos.

 

I largely agree with your other points, though the Mirror is well outgunned nationally by the Mail, Sun, Express etc.

 

If Thatcher was still in power, would you be calling for her to apologise or resign for her misjudgment of Saville and her government's failure to prosecute a proven paedophile, one knighted under a government (70-74) in which she was Minister for Education? This mud-slinging brings us all down - and, you're right, we're going to get a hell of a lot more of it.

 

Harman has a very preachy manner - and your charges of hypocrisy are probably justified, though she sometimes makes some good points. I neither hate nor love her - but am sure, as you say, that she's a natural target for the Mail due to her personality. Did you choose to mention Flint and Burnham remembering that I once knew the former, and had contacts who knew the latter? Burnham sounds to be in the minority of genuinely decent politicians; Flint was always personally ambitious, though friendly enough and quite attractive. Her then boy-friend was a really nice bloke - a West Ham fan who's now a schoolteacher. I once (accidentally) carried their condoms....didn't use them, though!   

[Webbo]

 

 

If Thatcher was still in power, would you be calling for her to apologise or resign for her misjudgment of Saville and her government's failure to prosecute a proven paedophile, one knighted under a government (70-74) in which she was Minister for Education? This mud-slinging brings us all down - and, you're right, we're going to get a hell of a lot more of it.

 

 

There's a difference between being fooled by a peadophile who hid his crimes and supporting a group that were openly campaigning on their behalf.

[Alf Bentley]

There's a difference between being fooled by a peadophile who hid his crimes and supporting a group that were openly campaigning on their behalf.

 

True at the time he got his knighthood, but by the time Thatcher was in power the paedophile had been identified as someone guilty of sending child porn through the post....but the CPS, supported by the Thatcher government opted not to press charges and Thatcher's Attorney-General stood up in parliament and supported this decision.

 

Define "supporting"... I've already said that I think HH should apologise, with hindsight, for failing to question the fact that this group affiliated with her employer. Arguing for more lenient sentencing and reasonable definitions of "indecency" isn't the same thing as "supporting a group".....but I don't know all the details and have to work now.

 

I'd prefer political debate to be based on the issues facing us today and proposed policies, rather than smears, though. 

[Webbo]

The 70s were so different from now, there were still unreconstructed hippies left over from the free love sexual revolution of the 60s. I think there's a famous album cover from the time with a naked 11 y o girl on the cover. Peadophiles were never mentioned, our parents told us not to talk to strangers but they never told us why.

 

I suspect to Ms Harman this was just another trendy, anti establishment cause that people like her tended to attach themselves to. I don't think she would have been a keen supporter or even have those views now but if it was Tory politician she wouldn't think twice about smearing them so what goes around comes around.

[Strokes]

The 70s were so different from now, there were still unreconstructed hippies left over from the free love sexual revolution of the 60s. I think there's a famous album cover from the time with a naked 11 y o girl on the cover. Peadophiles were never mentioned, our parents told us not to talk to strangers but they never told us why.

I suspect to Ms Harman this was just another trendy, anti establishment cause that people like her tended to attach themselves to. I don't think she would have been a keen supporter or even have those views now but if it was Tory politician she wouldn't think twice about smearing them so what goes around comes around.

Yeah I agree with this, she has made a career out of discrediting and smearing people, she gets no sympathy from me. However do I think she in anyway supports rights for paedophiles, no.

Also I hate all this media/public demanding an apology shit, its out of control.

Edited 25 February 2014 by Strokes

[Zingari]

The 70s were so different from now, there were still unreconstructed hippies left over from the free love sexual revolution of the 60s. I think there's a famous album cover from the time with a naked 11 y o girl on the cover. Peadophiles were never mentioned, our parents told us not to talk to strangers but they never told us why.

 

I suspect to Ms Harman this was just another trendy, anti establishment cause that people like her tended to attach themselves to. I don't think she would have been a keen supporter or even have those views now but if it was Tory politician she wouldn't think twice about smearing them so what goes around comes around.

there's still a few of us knocking about now man  kaftans are still cool in our yurt 

Edited 25 February 2014 by Zingari

[Rincewind]

Not read all the details but on RL news it said they were a group campaigning for free speech and she was involved late on and in different areas of their beliefs.

[Webbo]

Yeah I agree with this, she has made a career out of discrediting and smearing people, she gets no sympathy from me. However do I think she in anyway supports rights for paedophiles, no.

Also I hate all this media/public demanding an apology shit, its out of control.

I saw her on Newsnight last night and I quite admired her refusal to apologise.

[Strokes]

I saw her on Newsnight last night and I quite admired her refusal to apologise.

So did I, and I quite concur. Its about time someone told us all to shove it.

[Alf Bentley]

The 70s were so different from now, there were still unreconstructed hippies left over from the free love sexual revolution of the 60s. I think there's a famous album cover from the time with a naked 11 y o girl on the cover. Peadophiles were never mentioned, our parents told us not to talk to strangers but they never told us why.

 

I'm glad you said that, Webbo, as I thought that I might be going bonkers - I'm sure that I never even heard the word "paedophile" until at least the 1980s. The uncovering of all these abuse scandals (priests, Saville, children's homes) have come after that, so it obviously would have been better if there had been more awareness back then.

[Rincewind]

Landlords that give the rest a bad name

http://downnotoutleicester.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/mp-slams-welfare-state-but-makes-625k-a-year-in-housing-benefits/

[ADK]

I don't think paedophile became that popular until the Sun kept going on about them. (Ironically at the time they ran pictures of topless 16 year olds).

 

We had a talk on "strangers" at primary school but it wasn't really explained what would happen if you accepted a lift home or took their offer of sweets. All I can remember is they usually drove a Ford Sierra.

[Guest MattP]

I saw her on Newsnight last night and I quite admired her refusal to apologise.

Generally I admire that but I find it difficult here, she said she wouldn't apologise as they became affiliated a couple of years before she took the position at the group.

This from a woman who got kitted out in African dress with Ken Livingstone and publicly apologised for a slave trade that finished 200 odd years before she was born in some Labour voting black area in London.

If politicians refuse on principal it's admirable, but this is because their are no votes in it for her.

[Guest MattP]

[quote name="ADK" post="2893944"

We had a talk on "strangers" at primary school but it wasn't really explained what would happen if you accepted a lift home or took their offer of sweets. All I can remember is they usually drove a Ford Sierra.

lol

[Webbo]

Generally I admire that but I find it difficult here, she said she wouldn't apologise as they became affiliated a couple of years before she took the position at the group.

This from a woman who got kitted out in African dress with Ken Livingstone and publicly apologised for a slave trade that finished 200 odd years before she was born in some Labour voting black area in London.

If politicians refuse on principal it's admirable, but this is because their are no votes in it for her.

She's an areshole, no doubt about it. In this case though I thought she was right.

[Zingari]

The 70s were so different from now, there were still unreconstructed hippies left over from the free love sexual revolution of the 60s. I think there's a famous album cover from the time with a naked 11 y o girl on the cover. Peadophiles were never mentioned, our parents told us not to talk to strangers but they never told us why.

 

I suspect to Ms Harman this was just another trendy, anti establishment cause that people like her tended to attach themselves to. I don't think she would have been a keen supporter or even have those views now but if it was Tory politician she wouldn't think twice about smearing them so what goes around comes around.

Yes the album was Blind Faith , if you google it the image is still shown .

[Webbo]

Yes the album was Blind Faith , if you google it the image is still shown .

That's the one.  I thought it was early 70s but it says 1969. They'd put you in jail for that nowadays.

[Zingari]

That's the one.  I thought it was early 70s but it says 1969. They'd put you in jail for that nowadays.

Very true, the story goes that when they were negotiating the fee , she asked for a pony but she settled for 40 quid .

 

( when i say a pony i mean a real horse , not 50 quid or whatever a cockney pony is )

 

edit;

try, googling "houses of the holy" by led zeppelin , 

as you say , they'd be serving a long stretch and on a register now 

Edited 25 February 2014 by Zingari

[Mike Oxlong]

Bollocks to that I'll go to prison before I stop giving my opinion on things.

Careful not to drop your soap.

[Mike Oxlong]

Cyril Smith was keen on PIE

Edited 25 February 2014 by Mike Oxlong

[purpleronnie]

I always find newspapers taking a moral high ground somewhat hypocritical.

[Guest MattP]

If Thatcher was still in power, would you be calling for her to apologise or resign for her misjudgment of Saville and her government's failure to prosecute a proven paedophile, one knighted under a government (70-74) in which she was Minister for Education? This mud-slinging brings us all down - and, you're right, we're going to get a hell of a lot more of it.

 

Harman has a very preachy manner - and your charges of hypocrisy are probably justified, though she sometimes makes some good points. I neither hate nor love her - but am sure, as you say, that she's a natural target for the Mail due to her personality. Did you choose to mention Flint and Burnham remembering that I once knew the former, and had contacts who knew the latter? Burnham sounds to be in the minority of genuinely decent politicians; Flint was always personally ambitious, though friendly enough and quite attractive. Her then boy-friend was a really nice bloke - a West Ham fan who's now a schoolteacher. I once (accidentally) carried their condoms....didn't use them, though!   

 

If Thatcher knew of course, fact is no one seemed to by the looks of it, or even worse, loads claim to have known but the bloke seemed to powerful to do anything about it.

 

You mentioned Flint before, I'll want to know about more about her when I see you for a pint on Saturday

 

I had a pint with Burnham at a fundraiser in London, got a good friend who works for William Pears who is very friendly with him.

[Alf Bentley]

Even worse, loads claim to have known but the bloke [saville] seemed to powerful to do anything about it.

 

You mentioned Flint before, I'll want to know about more about her when I see you for a pint on Saturday

 

I had a pint with Burnham at a fundraiser in London, got a good friend who works for William Pears who is very friendly with him.

 

- Saville: That's what I find depressing, because surely some of those people had enough clout that they could have ensured that he was stopped, but they chose to turn a blind eye....

- Flint: You're welcome; I worked with her on the student magazine and in uni politics, but wasn't a close friend....will be able to summon up a few grains of gossip, though, I'm sure.

- Burnham: I'll be interested to hear whether your reviews are as positive as my mate's; I'll be disappointed if it's bad news as I trust my instinct that he's in the minority of genuine politicians, whatever you might think about his politics.