Friday, 5 June, 2015 A DECENT NEW FILM BY DAVID KENNERLY
"There’s a fantastic new film out today but I have a bit of a problem if I try to big it up too much. It’s the greatest thing you’ll ever see but I can’t say so on account of an embarrassing personal detail, namely that I have an – ahem, excuse me – starring role! So that’s why I am mentioning it only down-page rather than giving it top billing. On this occasion I am quite happy to play second fiddle even to Stinson Hunter!
The real star of A Decent Life: The Dissenting Narrative of Tom O’Carroll, is the director, David Kennerly, who has miraculously managed to turn the pig’s ear of my discarded interview last year for Testimony Films into the silk purse of a 11-part, all-singing, all-dancing (well, not by me!) epic, which is launched today and can be seen on YouTube. The segments are each just a few minutes long, hence easily viewed at separate sittings, while the complete work is a little over 68 minutes.
David, as those who have been around at Heretic TOC since the inception will know, has been a guest blogger here a couple of times, debuting in 2013 with a piece about his childhood in the American Midwest and returning last year to warn about the menacing advance of securocratic government.
He studied at film school and has been involved professionally in film production. I didn’t know this background, but when he was liaising with me to make A Decent Life (his title not mine, in case you’re wondering, and I like it) it became obvious to me he has the relevant skills.
David first went to work on the audio of the Testimony Films interview last year, producing Stitching Up Steve Humphries, Humphries being the guy who conducted an interview on behalf of Testimony, which, in the light of what happened later, appears to have been designed to stitch me up as the interviewee. In making his pitch to me, Humphries had come across as a very sympathetic figure, emphasising his background as a social historian, and his interest in hearing a diverse range of views on sexuality, including mine.
The interview was to be part of a documentary on paedophilia he was making for Channel 4 called The Paedophile New Door. When this was aired, however – without any footage from his interview with me – it became overwhelmingly clear his position had all along been fundamentally hostile to mine. It looks as though he ditched my contribution because he had failed to trick me into saying anything that would discredit me: his would-be stitch-up had unravelled.
What David did was to turn the tables on Humphries, stringing together the audio of all his questions but without giving a word of my responses. This cleverly exposed his stitch-up tactics for what they were.
In A Decent Life, by contrast, he has done the exact opposite. This time we hear not a peep from Humphries. Instead, he has given full rein to my responses without them being butchered to quote me out of context or otherwise discredit my contribution.
I like the result and I hope you will. If you agree A Decent Life is a good film, please Tweet about it or give it a plug wherever you can, online via the social media or elsewhere. Thanks!"
An essential listen, for all those who matter ....
17/12/14
The rise of the lachrymocracy
"What proved particularly tough for me was an unexpected visit by
Humphries to a difficult time in my past, when I was young. I am not
sure why I was so unprepared. In retrospect, the topic in question was
an obvious one to explore.
My mistake was to assume I needed to focus my preparation solely on
rational arguments and scientific evidence, and how to present things in
a rhetorically persuasive fashion.
This all seemed very remote from ancient details of my personal history.
In retrospect it was a silly oversight on my part, but that is with the
benefit of hindsight.
OK, time to stop beating about the bush. I was overly emotional.
My paternal lineage is Irish but I was brought up in 1950s England into
the culture of the British stiff upper lip. I hate the public displays
of emotion that are so ubiquitous in the media these days, which appear
to have started in the UK with the mass lachrymosity of the British
public in response to the death of Princess Diana (a person most of the
“mourners” had never met and knew little about) and which now extend to
the winners (and losers) in televised cake-baking contests and such
like: no event is too trivial to be the occasion for weeping these days.
As for more serious matters, we are not so much a liberal democracy now
as an increasingly illiberal lachrymocracy: it is the weepers and
wailers – sometimes with good cause but often not – who call the
dirgical tune and imperiously demand we should all sing it."
26/12/14
I was severely amused by paedo Chris Denning
"Thirteen years for both of them! Charles Napier, sentenced the day
before Christmas Eve, got exactly the same as was meted out to Chris
Denning earlier in the month, as though these savage punishments were
choreographed to send a seasonal message of goodwill to all mankind
except paedophiles."
Excellent reporting on man (former chair of PIE) who continues to campaign for paedophiles's rights http://t.co/SelQAf6fw7 via @missyasin
— Alicia Izharuddin (@AIiciaIz) March 18, 2015
The Home Office allegedly funded a paedophile group in the 1970s. Why?
"The Home Office may have covered up historic child abuse allegations - but what of the "Paedophile Information Exchange" group that was allegedly funded by the department?"
NEW ARTICLE - The Home Office allegedly funded a paedophile group in the 1970s. Why? http://t.co/IgLJjkoj0c
— Children have rights (@UK_Database_CSA) November 13, 2014
@ampp3d@DailyMirror Well, it did not (see report), but, if so, because P, even then, was recognized as a MH issue, requiring support ...
— The OSC (@OSC______P) November 13, 2014
@ampp3d@DailyMirror Maybe maybe not - but, if so, the money was provided, quite legitimately, as to other similar organisations, of the day
— The OSC (@OSC______P) November 13, 2014
I won't be taken seriously as a journo unless I read stuff paedophiles write about why paedophilia isn't wrong & should be legal
:'''''(
— Sophie Warnes (@SophieWarnes) November 13, 2014
If not being sympathetic to abusers means I'm not taken seriously then by all means don't take me seriously
— Sophie Warnes (@SophieWarnes) November 13, 2014
Published: 22:06, 15 November 2014 | Updated: 23:44, 15 November 2014
Revealed: How Gordon Brown was duped into aiding the founder of vile paedophile group who infiltrated gay rights rally
">Gordon Brown was duped into backing an event by PIE founder Ian Dunn,
>Former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook and Brown sponsored the congress,
>PIE was trying to piggy-back gay rights conference In Edinburgh in 1974,
>The vile group planned to use the event to push its disturbing agenda,
>Paedophiles were secretly invited to the conference from around the world,
>Delegates were invited to attend a planned paedophilia 'workshop',
>Former PM says he did not know PIE were at the congress 40 years ago,
>Links between Labour grandees and PIE were revealed earlier this year."
Why 'Making' (Downloading - POCA 1978)/'Possessing' (CJA 1988) Indecent Images of Children Is Not A Sexual Offence And Never Can Be (Well, Not In A Rational World)
9:10PM BST 05 Jul 2014
'Paedophilia [sic] is natural and normal for males'
"How some university academics make the case for paedophiles at summer conferences
After the report into Jimmy Savile and the conviction of Rolf Harris, Britain has gone into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties."
University Academics Say Pedophilia Is ‘Natural, And Normal For Males To Be AROUSED By Children’
"An academic conference held at the University of Cambridge said that pedophilia interest is “natural and normal for males”, and that “at least a sizable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children, and normal males are aroused by children.” "
Here is the challenge, Dr Graham Powell (even though, you did turn to The Dark Side, which actually explains your back-peddling).
Provide us with a reading list etc, which you believe, changes anything, from what you had available in 1981 (please provide those sources, as well).
Prove to us, via these papers etc, that Child Sexual Activity (CSAc), is the causal antecedent of serious harm/trauma, in other than a tiny number of people (even in those).
In fact, we will settle for non-serious harm/trauma figures and evidence, at this stage.
We await anything, that you would like to provide, to substantiate your claims.
"You know when a scandal has made it to the news big league when it gets the “gate” tag, like Watergate. Well, the last ten days or so in the UK have given us Paedogate, in which the rabid right wing Daily Mail launched a sustained campaign to expose left wing support for the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when I was its Chair back in the 1970s.
The aim was clearly to embarrass and undermine three leading figures in the Labour party. It worked. Initially dismissed as old hat because the story had been around for years as vague internet gossip, the Mail’s detailed trawl through publicly accessible archives and their own newspaper cuttings library paid off. At last, the rest of the national media finally sat up and paid attention in a big way. The Labour trio who were under fire, thanks to their work for the National Council of Civil Liberties (NCCL), to which PIE was affiliated, were forced to respond publicly. Harriet Harman, now Deputy Leader of the Labour party, angrily denounced the Mail. She had been an NCCL legal officer. Patricia Hewitt, a former cabinet minister in Tony Blair’s government, had a tougher hand to play because she had been NCCL’s General Secretary and had been closely associated with the organisation’s own very radical policy on the age of consent. She was forced into an apology in which she disowned this policy and also wrote ..."
PUBLISHED: 23:20, 20 February 2014 | UPDATED: 04:53, 21 February 2014
Surprise, surprise, the BBC has ignored our expose [sic] of Labour's [sic] links to a child sex scandal [sic]. QUENTIN LETTS imagines its reaction if those involved were Tory
PUBLISHED: 00:25, 21 February 2014 | UPDATED: 00:27, 21 February 2014 Inexcusable: Leading abuse charity [sic] demands [really?] apology from Labour trio with links to vile [sic] paedophile [sic] group
PUBLISHED: 02:18, 22 February 2014 | UPDATED: 13:19, 22 February 2014
Apologists for paedophilia [sic]: As the Mail exposes more links between senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group [sic], one man who was abused as a child asks them: why won't you admit you were wrong?
PUBLISHED: 02:18, 22 February 2014 | UPDATED: 13:19, 22 February 2014
Apologists for paedophilia [sic]: As the Mail exposes more links between senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group [sic], one man who was abused as a child asks them: why won't you admit you were wrong?
@guyadams In regards to your 'questions' - not much remains, when the straw men of faulty logic are removed ...
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 22, 2014
@guyadams as for the other content, go read the literature and research, of the time (and now, for that matter) ...
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 22, 2014
Quentin Letts re Labour Peado sex scandal [sic] which BBC has ignored (but if it was Tory it would go MAD)
http://t.co/m01GPpJcSP
.
— Ian Puddick (@ianpuddick) February 22, 2014
@guyadams Yes they can Guy ... you know when you are walking down the street, and someone with 'special needs' shouts at you?
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 23, 2014
@guyadams You and your like, are equivalent to the poor folk with 'special needs' - see?
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 23, 2014
Rod Liddle asks BIG question in @thesundaytimes "imagine how BBC would react if 3 current senior Tories were linked to a Paedophile group?"
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 23, 2014
@veniviedivici@thesundaytimes Anyone, EVERYONE, involved in helping supporting promoting excusing Paedos or supporters should be exposed!
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 23, 2014
Is @ostercywriter right? Does no-one care that three senior Labour politicians aided and abetted Paedophile supporters? @_TheGMan
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 24, 2014
Miliband bites on Mail's Labour paedophile campaign for first time says he 'sets no store' in allegations against Harman, Dromey and Hewitt
— Matthew Bayley (@MattBayleySky) February 24, 2014
(Embedded tweets - click date)
Feb 22, 2014 20:00
Senior Labour figures have serious questions to answer about past links to vile paedophile support group
I see no point in responding, as anything I say would merely serve as another angle to keep the story going.
Not that they need my help. They have already run the story in various versions before, and will no doubt do so again at the slightest excuse, whether they have anything new to say or not. They know what keeps their punters happy, so they cannot be accused of incompetence in terms of generating sales. However, so far as this particular repetitious saga is concerned they are beginning to resemble the Daily Express, which constantly recycles a handful of stories (death of Princess Diana, disappeared toddler Madeleine McCann, miracle cure for arthritis, stormy weather ahead) to its elderly readership, who are presumably so far gone in senility they cannot remember they read the same thing only a few days before.
The Mail can take the downmarket Express route if they wish. It may be successful in sales terms, but it is hardly a recipe for respected journalism."
BBC will now cover this by attacking the press! "Milibland rejects claims Labour trio linked to paedophile campaign http://t.co/jbihEbPeZS”
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 24, 2014
(Embedded tweet - click date)
*****
24/02/2014
NCCL Statement
"In recent days I have been the subject of a politically-motivated smear campaign by the Daily Mail.
They have accused me of being an apologist for child sex abuse, of supporting a vile paedophile organisation, of having a relaxed attitude to paedophilia and of watering down child pornography laws. These are horrific allegations and I strongly deny them all of them.
This is not the first time the Daily Mail has made this horrible and untrue allegation. And, this is not the first time the Daily Mail has attacked me. The editor and proprietor of the Daily Mail are entitled to their political views and they are of course entitled to oppose what I stand for but they are not entitled to use their newspaper to smear me with innuendo because they disagree with me politically and hate my values.
I sincerely hope people won't believe these smears - I suspect even the Daily Mail doesn't believe them to be true. But given the seriousness and the aggression with which the Daily Mail are pursuing me, I feel that I need to put the facts in the public domain.
1. Allegation that I supported the lowering of the age of consent to 10
This is not true. I supported the equalisation of the age of consent (as set out in NCCL document “priorities and strategy for the executive committee June 1981") by making the age of consent the same for homosexual as well as for heterosexual sex.
2. Allegation that I opposed the law on incest
This is not true. The document they refer to was written by NCCL in 1976 before I started to work there.
3. Allegation that I was seeking to water down a proposed ban on child pornography.
This is not true. I supported the Protection of Children Bill 1978. At the start of the document it makes clear that “The NCCL deplores the exploitation of children whether in the form of use in commercial pornography or as victims of sexual assaults"
The submission argued for some amendments to guard against unintended consequences including:
- Parents being criminalised for taking pictures of their children on the beach or in the bath
- The use of pictures in sex education being criminalised
- We also proposed that the definition of indecent was too wide and instead proposed "obscene" as indecent was very broadly defined and could include Page 3 of the Sun.
The Mail have tried to make me guilty by way guilt by association.
NCCL was an organisation which anyone could apply to join and indeed any organisation could apply to be "an affiliate" on payment of a fee. When I was at NCCL there were around 6,000 members and nearly 1,000 affiliated organisations of which PIE was one.
Members and affiliates decided the organisation's policy at the AGM from year to year.
I was aware that because NCCL opposed censorship and supported gay rights, paedophiles had sought to exploit that and use NCCL as a vehicle to make their arguments. But by the time I came to work for NCCL this vile organisation had already been vigorously challenged within the organisation. Jack Dromey was instrumental in that challenge when he took over the chair of NCCL in 1976
The reason I decided to go to work for NCCL was because I actively supported the work they had done and in particular the work of their women's rights committee on the Equal Pay Act, on the introduction of the Sex Discrimination Act and for greater protection of victims of domestic violence and against race discrimination.
Since being elected to the House of Commons in 1982 and during my times in Ministerial Office I have always championed the rights of those subjected to sexual abuse - especially women and children.
I hope The Daily Mail will stop this campaign of smear and innuendo against me. I have done nothing wrong and am guilty of none of their grotesque allegations."
Harman finally come out today to challenge paedophile smears. Essentially, a muddle over PIE/NCCL links.
— Prof Chris Ashford (@lawandsexuality) February 24, 2014
"Harriet Harman has
condemned "horrible&untrue" allegations re historic involvement in
paedo rights" So BBC will cover it now...as a smear!
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 24, 2014
Harriet Harman refuses repeatedly to apologise under fierce forensic @BBCNewsnight questioning over her NCCL succour for paedo campaigners
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 24, 2014
@waynesmith1971 couldn't give a toss about their politics - I curse all paedos & want them crucified. But vital word is publishable EVIDENCE
— Neil Wallis (@neilwallis1) February 24, 2014
Tom O Carroll, formerly of PIE, tells BBC NCCL didn't do much to challenge him as didn't 'want to rock the boat'
— Laura Kuenssberg (@bbclaurak) February 26, 2014
(Embedded tweets - click date)
24/02/2014
Including Harriet Harman on the tabloid paedophile row, Ukraine, and Cameron in Scotland
PUBLISHED: 22:41, 24 February 2014 | UPDATED: 08:14, 25 February 2014
But they still won't say sorry: Labour's Harman and Dromey finally break their silence over links to paedophile group
Harman’s attempt to pass paedophile story off as Daily Mail “smear” is a political mistake. Post for @TelepgraphBlogs http://t.co/ejRXvwQsCX
— Toby Young (@toadmeister) February 25, 2014
@toadmeister@guyadams The answer to your q, is - no, it was not a mistake, it was (and still is) all a learned and principled civil rights
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 25, 2014
@toadmeister@guyadams group should do (cf ACLU/NAMBLA, now) - unfortunately, Liberty are far from that, to society's and truth's loss.
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 25, 2014
When it comes to decency and sexualisation of children, would you take lessons from the Daily Mail? pic.twitter.com/MXmWhOILKQ
— Harriet Harman (@HarrietHarman) February 25, 2014
Harman tweet response to Mail allegation seems v.badly judged. "They do sleaze too" is v.poor defence + sleazy pics v.diff from PIE links
— Toby Harnden (@tobyharnden) February 25, 2014
According to Labour PO, @EmilyThornberry is the only Labour MP publicly defending Harriet Harman. Looking forward to talking with you, Emily
— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) February 25, 2014
New Blog by me: Harman & the NCCL: What Has the BBC Really Learnt?: One of the most irritating phrases you wil... http://t.co/ujpCT1GET5
— Iain Dale (@IainDale) February 25, 2014
(Embedded tweets - click date)
*****
February 25, 2014 at 08:23AM
Harriet Harman, the NCCL: Smear Or Legitimate Story?
"Iain takes the Daily Mail to task.
One of the most irritating phrases you will ever hear on television is “the BBC has learnt”. You’d think it meant that due to an original piece of journalism, the BBC has found out something nobody else has. Invariably it means the BBC has switched on Sky News.
Sky use a similar technique by using the phrase “Sky sources have told us.” But in each case it gives the broadcaster cover to hype up a story that might otherwise be considered a little pedestrian. And it perverts the news agenda. But this sort of thing happens every day. Take the current furore about Harriet Harman, the Daily Mail, and the NCCL.
Over the last few days both the BBC and Sky have studiously ignored the front pages of the Daily Mail, which has accused Harriet Harman of, well, I’m not totally sure exactly. It seems they think that because she was legal officer to the NCCL she must have somehow sympathised with the aims and objectives of one of its thousands of members, the Paedophile Information Exchange. It’s a ‘guilt by association’ smear which upon any reasonable examination doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. But day after day the Daily Mail demands that Harman, her husband Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt say ‘sorry’. It’s the same kind of tactic they used on Ed Miliband back in September.
Conservatives have up to now attacked the BBC for not even mentioning the issue, understandably believing that if three Tory politicians had been accused of something similar the BBC might not have been so coy. We’ll never know. However, the BBC could defend its position by pointing out that these allegations are nothing new and were first aired back in 2009. That would be a sustainable editorial position.
But yesterday the game changed when Harriet Harman decided to break cover and respond to the allegations by giving the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg an interview. It turned out to be a bad move. Instead of saying that it was a clear mistake for the NCCL to allow the PIE to be an associate member, she prevaricated and appeared a little shifty. Not only that she compounded her error by accusing the Daily Mail of being hypocritical because it publishes pictures of bikini-clad young women on its website. Women, not girls. So instead of closing down the story, it has merely given all other media outlets the excuse to cover it on the basis that if Harriet Harman has spoken about it, it becomes a legitimate story.
Cue BBC overkill. It’s now leading bulletins on the Today Programme and 5 Live. I haven’t seen Sky News yet this morning, so I can’t comment on what they are doing but as it’s the lead story on their website it’s probable that it is leading their bulletins too.
I’ve steered clear of the story on my LBC show, not because of any desire to be politically correct, but because I genuinely don’t see this as a massive story. I see it as a politically-motivated smear by a newspaper which is besmirching its own good name by running it day after day after day.
Does anyone seriously believe Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt have any paedophile sympathies? No, of course not. They worked for a ramshackle organisation which was run in an anarchic way. Just as anyone with dubious views can join a political party, anyone or any organisation with dubious views could join the NCCL. Does anyone seriously think that Harman, a lowly junior legal officer, had the power to expel a member who had legitimately joined? Presumably to do so would have meant changing the NCCL’s constitution. Perhaps she and her husband tried to do that. Who knows? But remember that one of the NCCL’s aims was to promote freedom of speech for everyone, no matter how vile their views.
The biggest mistake Harriet Harman has made was to give that interview to Newsnight. All it succeeded in doing was fanning the story’s flames and giving other media organisations and newspapers to excuse they needed to cover it. Well, that’s all fine and dandy, but the overblown and blanket coverage it is getting is so out of proportion to the lack of coverage it got yesterday, that editors all over the place, but especially the BBC, would do well to examine why they are doing what they are doing. Are they doing this because it is such an important story or because of their collective feeling of guilt that maybe they should have given it some coverage well before today?
When I go into LBC today and we start planning my Drive programme, it will be interesting to see how the story has developed during the day. If I cover it at all – and at the moment my feeling is that I’d rather not – it will be looking at the behaviour of the Daily Mail, more than the behaviour of Harriet Harman. No doubt I will get a shedload of abuse for it, but hey – broad shoulders and all that."
http://www.lbc.co.uk/iain-dales-blog-30195/entry/120/9927
*****
Yet another Tory smear from the, er, Mirror...
There is a paedophile elephant in the corner of Labour’s living room http://t.co/lsAlxqZQCE
— Julia Hartley-Brewer (@JuliaHB1) February 25, 2014
(Embedded tweet - click date)
Feb 25, 2014 17:05
There is a paedophile elephant in the corner of Labour’s living room
PUBLISHED: 10:55, 26 February 2014 | UPDATED: 11:48, 26 February 2014
Harman and Hewitt 'never tried to kick me out - they didn't want to rock the boat to protect their careers' claims child abuser ex leader of Paedophile Information Exchange
Wow Lawrence Gostin ex Gen Sec NCCL has astonishing views on freedom of speech and promotion of paedophilia on #newsnight
— EVAW Coalition (@EVAWhd) February 25, 2014
Former NCCL director general Lawrence Gostin: "The Paedophile Information Exchange was about information, not about the act" #newsnight
— Ian Katz (@iankatz1000) February 25, 2014
Former NCCL general secretary says paedophilia is "unconscionable" but the right of speech can't be condemned #newsnight
— BBC Newsnight (@BBCNewsnight) February 25, 2014
Paxman/@BBCNewsnight adding to the hysteria by referring to 'act of paedophilia'. It's sexual interest - the 'act' is child abuse #newsnight
— Craig Harper (@CraigHarper19) February 25, 2014
PIE member Tom O'Carroll challenges idea the group was sidelined from NCCL in 1976 in 1st comments in Harman row http://t.co/imhsEttPKU
— Rowena Mason (@rowenamason) February 25, 2014
@OSCP2@CraigHarper "Paedophilia" has become a word of normal usage with different meaning to its psychiatric use. Won't get it back in bag
— Zen o'Poesis (@XenoPoesis) February 25, 2014
(Embedded tweets - click date)
Tuesday 25 February 2014 20.59 GMT
Harriet Harman demands apology for Daily Mail's paedophile 'smears'
Uncle Tom still playing his silly little games ...
PUBLISHED: 23:10, 25 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:36, 25 February 2014
Labour MP calls for probe into state cash for Paedophile Information Exchange after claims files that prove it received taxpayers' money have been shredded
Labour MP Tom Watson admits he would not have touched paedophile rights group PIE 'with a bargepole' http://t.co/o6Xn5DmypW
— TheIndyPolitics (@IndyPolitics) February 26, 2014
(Embedded Tweet - click date)
Feb 25, 2014 19:16
Tories must say sorry for 'covering up child sex abuse' before Harriet Harman has to apologise
Professor Roy Greenslade declares Harriet Harman's recent efforts at crisis management: "wholly inept" http://t.co/zPlghJeWEQ
— Guy Adams (@guyadams) February 26, 2014
@StigAbell One story, Stig, one story... but I agree about the expert bit, of course
— Roy Greenslade (@GreensladeR) February 21, 2014
Prof now on #newsnight not really helping Harriet Harman's case
— Jonathan Freedland (@Freedland) February 25, 2014
(Embedded Tweets - click date)
Tuesday 25 February 2014 20.22 GMT
Harriet Harman's handling of the Daily Mail 'smear' has been wholly inept
PUBLISHED: 23:32, 26 February 2014 | UPDATED: 00:08, 27 February 2014
Harman's pressure group advertised for members in magazine for paedophiles: New evidence links NCCL to PIE while Harriet was legal chief
PUBLISHED: 01:36, 27 February 2014 | UPDATED: 01:36, 27 February 2014
STEPHEN GLOVER: The Left argue that a sexual free-for-all in the 70s explains their tolerance of child sex abusers. What twisted bunkum
"Shaun Ley reports on the efforts of the Paedophile Information Exchange to gain support from politicians and links between PIE and the National Council of Civil Liberties."
It needs to be stressed - no intrinsic link between gay rights and paedophilia - rather, paed campaigners tried to hijack gay rights mvts
— Ian Pace (@ian_pace) February 27, 2014
@ian_pace Needs to be stressed .. total intrinsic link, in many cases. There are LGBT Ps, there are P LGBTs - In fact, there is only LGBTP.
— TheOSC (@OSCP2) February 27, 2014
PIE was primarily a male gay paed organisation (with a few lesbian members), and used that fact to appropriate language of identity politics
— Ian Pace (@ian_pace) February 27, 2014
