Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I find it very interesting at the moment how a lot of media sources(ala, the BBC) are attempting to ignore this. I wouldn't usually link to the Daily Fail, but as they make a point of showing photographs of the archival sources involved, I consider it a reasonably good source this time around.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/carole-malone-labours-harriet-harman-3174026

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9614516/Jimmy-Savile-Labour-faces-embarrassment-over-former-child-sex-claims.html

In a nutshell for those of you who take the tl;dr approach, Harriet Harman, former acting head of the Labour Party and deputy of Gordon Brown argued that paedophilic material should only be considered to be indecent/a crime if it could be proved (with the onus of proof on the prosecution), that the child had suffered during its production. There's other stuff in there as well, but its more linked to other Labour dignitaries like Patricia Hewitt.

Quite convenient timing for this, in the run up to an election.

I think that's one of the reasons it hasn't proliferated to be honest. To Labour, it's a PR nightmare, so they're trying to squash it. To the Tories, it's a PR godsend, but it would so much more convenient if they could dust it off in six months time with a conveniently shocked expression on their faces. The result being that both parties are doing their best to sit on it for the time being behind the scenes.

A misjudgement 30 years ago being dug up just before an election campaign? Thats unsuprising.

The NCCL was far more than a paedophile apologist's group, its basically a left wing advocacy group that has been around since the 30's, its now know as liberty.

I wonder what dirt will be dug up on the Tories in the coming months.

I suspect the recent acquittals of high profile cases mean that the major news outlets will be being very very carful to ensure that their is fire rather than shouting because of the smoke.

Wait, wait, wait. So this group of paedophiles actually called itself the Paedophile Information Exchange and nobody batted an eye?

Sounds like something off that Brass Eye specal.

"If you show this picture to a paedophile they'll actually attack it in an attempt to reach the child"

I'm sure the Conservatives have got some dusty old nonce skeletons in their closet too. Both Parties are as bad as each other.

It may be that the media is just a bit bored of paedophile stuff.

It's amazing what doesn't fly in the press. A year after the Wimbledon Common murder (for the benefit of non UK, this was a HUGE news story at the time), another killing with a similar m/o was carried out in a nearby area. The second killing was of a mother AND her daughter. The crime scene was so distressing that the police photographer had to be given two years off. Did you hear about this one? Nope, because the British press wasn't interested.

We now know that both crimes were committed by Robert Napper. Would this conclusion have been reached a little earlier if the 2nd murder had been given a bit more attention?

The media is a funny animal.

I'm not sure working as their chief lawyer and advocate quite counts as a 'misjudgement'. Or writing letters declaring that child pornography should totally be legit unless the kid is obviously being raped is so much a 'skeleton' in the closet as much as it is three little girls chopped up in bags. And I mean, she signed her name to it on official documentation for christ sake.

Seriously, there's being found to be taking cheques on the side from businessmen (standard Tory and Labour sleaze), and then there's stuff beyond the pale. I think this falls more into the latter category. I mean, this is the woman who launched a campaign to ban a brand of beer from the Commons bars because it had a woman in a bikini on the front. But she was pro-child porn?

Be interesting to see if the Daily Mail goes all Stephen Lawrence* on this. Once that paper gets its teeth into something, rightly or wrongly, it tends not to let go.

*The one decent thing the Daily Mail has managed to do - when the murderers of Stephen Lawrence were initially found innocent, the paper ran a front page headline stating that they were guilty. It continually hounded both them and the investigating police force until a justice of sorts was finally achieved.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure working as their chief lawyer and advocate quite counts as a 'misjudgement'. Or writing letters declaring that child pornography should totally be legit unless the kid is obviously being raped is so much a 'skeleton' in the closet as much as it is three little girls chopped up in bags.

The former isn't a significant misjudgement, certainly no more so that any other politican who has been a member of some kind of advocacy group. The later is. it is however no where near as serious as keeping bits of small children in bin bags.

I would be hesitant to call her pro child porn, that may have been the result if the amendments had become law but I suspect that her primary driver was for the law to interfere in other peoples lives as little as possible while making things as open and free as possible. There some massive flaws in that of course but still.

 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure working as their chief lawyer and advocate quite counts as a 'misjudgement'. Or writing letters declaring that child pornography should totally be legit unless the kid is obviously being raped is so much a 'skeleton' in the closet as much as it is three little girls chopped up in bags. And I mean, she signed her name to it on official documentation for christ sake.

Seriously, there's being found to be taking cheques on the side from businessmen (standard Tory and Labour sleaze), and then there's stuff beyond the pale. I think this falls more into the latter category. I mean, this is the woman who launched a campaign to ban a brand of beer from the Commons bars because it had a woman in a bikini on the front. But she was pro-child porn?

The language in the articles is interesting. It's an offense to have images of children in a state of undress currently. My parents had lots of pictures of my brother and I at the beach, starkers, under the age of 7 or so, as that's how many kids used to roam the seaside. Also some pictures of us in the bath, with bubblebath beards and hair. Nowadays, such pictures being developed at a shop or being seen by a neighbor can start a formal investigation or be used as evidence.

What she wrote was:
“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.”
So the ownership of a photograph won't automatically result in it's consideration as evidence or reason to prosecute. So, for example, if my parents had been accused by a neighbor, the photos of us at the beach would not be construed as evidence of them being paedophiles, but rather parents who took a picture of their children.
What is clear, from the writing of this 'pronounced psychological or emotional disorder' still allows the authorities to go after those who are sexualizing children in images. What it would have countered is the current state of affairs, where you cannot take pictures of your own child on sports day or the school play or at the beach.
It reads to me as an attempt to clarify the difference between a picture of a child and child pornography.

Oh and btw... They've wheeled this story out once or twice before, when they needed to whip up the frothy mouthed brigade.

5 years ago. Telegraph, 2009...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html

2 years ago. Telegraph 2012...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/damianthompson/100185799/how-hatties-friends-defended-paedophilia/

 Palindrome wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I'm not sure working as their chief lawyer and advocate quite counts as a 'misjudgement'. Or writing letters declaring that child pornography should totally be legit unless the kid is obviously being raped is so much a 'skeleton' in the closet as much as it is three little girls chopped up in bags.

The former isn't a significant misjudgement, certainly no more so that any other politican who has been a member of some kind of advocacy group. The later is. it is however no where near as serious as keeping bits of small children in bin bags.

You misunderstand. I'm saying that there's the standard run of the mill political scandal, eg. cash being handed out for legislation, affairs, deriding the public in private but caught on microphone, etc. That sort of thing happens all the time, to the point where we more or less expect it, and aren't too surprised to hear about it when it's going on. Those are the 'skeletons in the closet'.

Advocating things like dropping the age of consent to ten and rebranding child pornography is something else altogether, at least in my view. If it turned out David Cameron had ever pulled that sort of thing, you can guarantee my vote would switch sides so fast it would catch fire. YMMV, I suppose. Perhaps it isn't a big deal to you. It does more or less put the kibosh on my voting Labour again whilst Harman and Hewitt are anywhere near power. Anyone who would try and push for legislation of that nature, even if it was just for political advantage, is not somewhere I want anywhere near the reins of my government.

@MGS

At best, that exonerates Harman. Not Hewitt. Hewitt was General Secretary from '74-'83, during the period when the NCCL was in the business of issuing statements like, '“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.”' And then recommending lowering the age of consent to ten. And then recommending abolishing incest as a crime between anyone over that age of consent.

Funny that.

 Ketara wrote:

@MGS

At best, that exonerates Harman. Not Hewitt. Hewitt was General Secretary from '74-'83, during the period when the NCCL was in the business of issuing statements like, '“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.”' And then recommending lowering the age of consent to ten. And then recommending abolishing incest as a crime between anyone over that age of consent.

Funny that.

Yes, but the intended target is Harman and the current Labour front benches, not someone they've rolled out to pasture.

Also, you're being misinformed by the Mail article. It deliberately blurs the contents of the NCCL document with paraphernalia from the PIE group. So the first set of pictures are from the document sent by the NCCL, including the calls for age to be reduced to 14, but the second set of images (note they are not labelled but photographed in a way to suggest they are from the same document), including the incest reference, whilst being placed to appear as part of the same document, are in fact from a PIE leaflet and not part of the NCCL document. Smoke and mirrors throughout this article.

And I was pleased to see no 'isn't she all grown up' photos in the 'right hand column of pronz' of the Mail there with their usual 'suggestive' images of a young celebrity, or child of a celebrity...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

@MGS

At best, that exonerates Harman. Not Hewitt. Hewitt was General Secretary from '74-'83, during the period when the NCCL was in the business of issuing statements like, '“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.”' And then recommending lowering the age of consent to ten. And then recommending abolishing incest as a crime between anyone over that age of consent.

Funny that.

Yes, but the intended target is Harman and the current Labour front benches, not someone they've rolled out to pasture.

Also, you're being misinformed by the Mail article. It deliberately blurs the contents of the NCCL document with paraphernalia from the PIE group. So the first set of pictures are from the document sent by the NCCL, including the calls for age to be reduced to 14, but the second set of images (note they are not labelled but photographed in a way to suggest they are from the same document), including the incest reference, whilst being placed to appear as part of the same document, are in fact from a PIE leaflet and not part of the NCCL document. Smoke and mirrors throughout this article.

Sorry old bean.The statement I addressed to you drew from the 1976 NCCL declaration (different article:-submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee ). Not the PIE leaflet/Daily Fail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paedophile_Information_Exchange

 Ketara wrote:

Advocating things like dropping the age of consent to ten and rebranding child pornography is something else altogether,

As MGS said though thats not really what she was saying.

I agree that out of context, Harman's 'clarification' seems reasonably innocent. When looked at it in context (namely, who her employers were, and the statements they were issuing within the previous two years), not so much. Kind of like how an anti-psychology lobbying front in America looks relatively benign until you realise it's run by scientologists.

I've known about this for about a year. It was right there on Harperson's wiki page! At the time I was like, 'why is no-one talking about this? Have I taken fething crazy pills or something?!'

I mean, I HAD taken crazy pills, but that's beside the point...

 Ketara wrote:
I agree that out of context, Harman's 'clarification' seems reasonably innocent. When looked at it in context (namely, who her employers were, and the statements they were issuing within the previous two years)

I'm not comfortable dismissing Harman's letter that easily. For instance perhaps NCCL's stance had changed in the 2 years since their 'Lolita charter', which after all predates her membership by 2 years. I would be very surpised if this wasn't far more nuanced than it appears.

I must admit, changing your policy from wanting to make it legal to abuse your ten year old nephew, into wanting to modify child pornography laws in such a way that they don't count unless the subject is being obviously raped, does not seem like a change in policy to me.

I'd be interested in hearing as to how that would be a shift in stance actually. Because I have to say, from where I'm sitting, it doesn't seem like such a big shift to me, in topic or in perspective.

 Ketara wrote:
I must admit, changing your policy from wanting to make it legal to abuse your ten year old nephew, into wanting to modify child pornography laws in such a way that they don't count unless the subject is being obviously raped, does not seem like a change in policy to me.

I think that everyone's parent's have completely innocent photographs of their children naked, I know I do and my mother has pictures of me. If the aim of her letter was to clarifiy and/or protect the legal position of these photographs then I see absolutely nothing wrong with it.

In the current age of hypersensitivity over children its entirely possible that her intent has been misconstrued. I for one find that far more likely than her approval of sexual abuse.

 Ketara wrote:
I must admit, changing your policy from wanting to make it legal to abuse your ten year old nephew, into wanting to modify child pornography laws in such a way that they don't count unless the subject is being obviously raped, does not seem like a change in policy to me.

That's not what it'd have done though. Sexual abuse would still be abuse because it wouldn't have been with consent (or would've been forced/taking advantage of someone etc.).

In the current age of hypersensitivity over children its entirely possible that her intent has been misconstrued. I for one find that far more likely than her approval of sexual abuse.

I doubt it was approval either.

What I see it as being far more likely to be, is her rolling with the organisation's stated aims at the time, and not caring about potential ramifications or consequences. I find it unlikely that her motivation in tabling that amendment was spurred by a sudden personal desire to protect people's right to home videos of their children.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Ketara wrote:
I must admit, changing your policy from wanting to make it legal to abuse your ten year old nephew, into wanting to modify child pornography laws in such a way that they don't count unless the subject is being obviously raped, does not seem like a change in policy to me.

That's not what it'd have done though. Sexual abuse would still be abuse because it wouldn't have been with consent (or would've been forced/taking advantage of someone etc.).

In my eyes, a child of that age cannot give consent, by pure virtue of the fact that they are truly not mentally capable of knowing what they are consenting to. Both emotionally and intellectually, they do not comprehend what is involved. It's akin to taking advantage of someone who is mentally challenged. In other words, any adult who sleeps with a ten year old I consider to be abusing them, regardless of the position of the law on the issue.