A Guardian report from 1975 about a Campaign for Homosexual Equality conference…the CHE has Labour peer Chris Smith as a vice president….the CHE was kicked out of ‘Liberty’ for its stance on child abuse…in 2009.
Cover-up has become part of the story of child abuse
From Nick Davies in the Guardian in 1998:
The sheer scale of child sexual abuse in Britain
The sexual abuse of children is a special crime, not simply because of the damage it does to its victims, nor even because of the anger and fear it provokes in communities, but more particularly because it is so easy – easy to commit, easy to get away with.
We have seen the results of cover-up and concealment, occasionally of corruption, of whistleblowers who are punished for trying to expose the truth, of local authorities, churches and other organisations who have closed ranks to deny or conceal allegations against their staff.
Of course it’s especially easy to get away with when people in positions of power or influence turn a blind eye to what is happening.
‘Speaking to the Radio 4 Today Programme O’Carroll said: ‘At the time Harman and Hewitt couldn’t just kick us out, or they could but they didn’t try. The reason was their careers in the NCCL depended upon them not rocking the boat too much.’ ‘
And it still goes on.
‘Is the BBC biased”s Craig, notes that Newsnight has again done a decent job:
Laura Kuennsberg v Harriet Harman (Part Two)
Perhaps a stint at ITV might be good for a few more BBC journo’s and might make them remember why they entered the job n the first place.
However, Newsnight apart, the BBC wanted to ignore this story and sweep it under the carpet. Even now as they ‘report’ it they downplay the story itself and concentrate on the politics or try to spread the ‘blame’.
Here is a Labour spokesperson trying to dodge the bullet:
“There’s an argument that the Daily Mail has got an agenda against certain senior figures in the Labour Party.”
Pienaar tells us that this story has plenty of mileage left in it especially for the Daily Mail which will keep digging away….‘objectively [?], this accounts for the deep hostility towards the paper from Harman’.
Really? I thought it was because they’d dragged up something that was extremely uncomfortable for her from her past that she didn’t want to deal with.
Sheila Fogarty feeds Pienaar a question….
‘Is this fight between the Daily Mail and Harriet Harman following a pattern such as when a paper tries to draw in an MP or politician?’
So dealing with the politics and not the substance of the issue.
Pienaar says….‘Not in this unpleasant form…..’
So now we know what he thinks…the Daily Mail raising the question is ‘unpleasant’….never mind the truth then.
Pienaar reduces it to a matter of a ‘feud and vendetta’ by the Daily Mail against Harman…..we must remember, he tells us, that it is important that the story is put against the background of not what Harriet Harman did but what she didn’t do…it’s crucial to reiterate that there’s no accusation that she acted in any way to support the paedophiles.…..the damage to her is by connecting the word paedophiles to her name in the same sentence…that’s what caused the outrage from Harriet Harman’.
So Harman didn’t work for an organisation that had close ties to PIE and she didn’t push for photos of naked children to be considered legal as long as the children weren’t ‘harmed’?
Pienaar goes on….‘The damage has been done and the war will continue but as far as this is concerned that context needs to be clear.’
So context is all…once again never mind the truth…or the actual context.
Pienaar portrays this as solely a political feud between a right wing paper and the Labour Party….downplaying the actual story itself.
But is it just a story cooked up by a right wing press to embarrass Labour?
Curious no mention of this from Labour’s Tom Watson only last year:
After 30 years without an answer it’s time to find out who protected the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange
It was established in 1974 to campaign for the age of consent to be lowered to four years old
Did previous Tory and Labour governments fund the infamous Paedophile Information Exchange?
Or this from the Daily Mirror recently:
There is a paedophile elephant in the corner of Labour’s living room
Everyone in the country is talking about perverts except people who have reasonable questions to answer about perverts
Deputy Labour leader Harriet Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey waited three days until the scandal reached boiling point and then accused the newspaper which started it of being more pervy than they are and running a political smear campaign.
The Daily Mail is pretty pervy, but it’s not political for the simple reason that a Tory politician with the same provable, documented links to PIE would be front page too.
You can’t blame it on one newspaper because pretty much everyone’s done it, except the BBC which was conspicuous in its absence from reporting the allegations.
It’s undeniably a story.
And was the NCCL so innocent? Apparently not….Patricia Hewitt has surfaced and done Harman up like a kipper:
Patricia Hewitt ‘sorry’ for stance on paedophile group
Did she have anything to apologise for? And did the NCCL sideline the ‘appalling PIE’ as claimed by Harman?
It seems not…….
From the Daily Mail in 1983:
And even the Guardian digs for more dirt:
Lobbying by paedophile campaign revealed
Evidence continues to emerge of links between NCCL and PIE after denials by Harman and Dromey
Archive documents appear to show how the paedophile group managed to influence policy at the civil liberties group despite being run by people who believed in their right to have sex with young children.
The Daily Mail reports that in 1979, one year after Harman joined, the NCCL advertised in a PIE publication for new members…..so obviously readers of that publication were welcome…and they were obviously paedophiles if they were reading such stuff…..
Harman’s pressure group advertised for members in magazine for paedophiles: New evidence links NCCL to PIE while Harriet was legal chief
The BBC does come up with this…which proves once more that Harman’s claim that PIE was loathed and sidelined is bunk…as is Pienaar’s claim that it’s merely a trumped up political charge by the Mail:
The NCCL continued to defend having PIE as a member. As late as September 1983, an NCCL officer was quoted in the Daily Mail saying the group was campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. “An offiliate [sic] group like the Paedophile Information Exchange would agree with our policy. That does not mean it’s a mutual thing and we have to agree with theirs.”
From the Mirror in 1977…sex is not for children…so the general atmosphere of the ‘times’ was not of acceptance of the likes of PIE:
The BBC is also digging…but you could interpret their effort as an attempt to tar a few others with the same brush and therefore limit the ‘damage’ that might accrue for Harman and Co:
How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?
The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties – now Liberty – in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?
It’s part of the story of how paedophiles tried to go mainstream in the 1970s. The group behind the attempt – the Paedophile Information Exchange – is back in the news because of a series of stories run by the Daily Mail about Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman.
PIE was formed in 1974. It campaigned for “children’s sexuality”. It wanted the government to axe or lower the age of consent. It offered support to adults “in legal difficulties concerning sexual acts with consenting ‘under age’ partners”. The real aim was to normalise sex with children.
It’s an ideology that seems chilling now. But PIE managed to gain support from some professional bodies and progressive groups. It received invitations from student unions, won sympathetic media coverage and found academics willing to push its message.
Peter Hain, then president of the Young Liberals, described paedophilia as “a wholly undesirable abnormality”
Reading the newspapers of the time there is a palpable anxiety that PIE was succeeding. ….A Guardian article in 1977 noted with dismay how the group was growing.
[Polly] Toynbee talked of her “disgust, aversion and anger” at the group.
Some, such as philosopher Roger Scruton, felt that freedom of speech had to be sacrificed when it came to groups like PIE. In a Times piece in September 1983 he wrote: “Paedophiles must be prevented from ‘coming out’.
Astonishing how many ‘lefties’ the BBC can squeeze in to one story and who all ‘opposed’ PIE fanatically….The Guardian, Hain, Toynbee and the BBC’s own Roger Scruton.
And then we have this highlighted by the BBC…..
If there was anything with the word ‘liberation’ in the name you were automatically in favour of it if you were young and cool in the 1970s. It seemed like PIE had slipped through the net” Matthew Parris, columnist
All just a mistake then….caught up in the excitement of the trendy 60’s and 70’s vibe.
Nothing to see here….child rape, child molestation…well you know…that’s progress for you…..
And there are many more questions to be asked….did a Labour government fund PIE?:
Or who is this?:
And who is this BBC presenter?:
The charity was set up by a PIE member in the 80s, offering yachting classes to vulnerable and underprivileged children.
The BBC presenter was investigated after police became aware of allegations he was abusing boys during sailing trips.
No charges were ever brought against the star for reasons that remain unclear.
A child protection source said yesterday: “The presenter was going out on a boat with vulnerable children and a leading former member of PIE.
“The charity was being used as a way of taking indecent pictures of the boys and there was also physical abuse occurring.”
No such answers from this something and nothing from the BBC:
What is the Harman-Mail row about?
The BBC deftly avoids going into any details about the claims made about the NCCL’s connections to PIE….
What does the Daily Mail say?
The newspaper has repeatedly questioned the reasons for the link being established and the role of Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt in the relationship between the two organisations.
It claims that Ms Harman tried to “water down” child pornography legislation when offering the National Council for Civil Liberties’ views on the Protection of Children Bill in 1978.
All clear then?…you now know exactly what the ‘Harman-Mail’ row is all about?….and that is it from the world’s finest news broadcaster.
When the Leftwing Guardian and Mirror, and even a Labour MP, are asking questions and demanding answers, the BBC is left standing in the wings looking foolishly partisan in its attempt to ignore and now cover up and downplay the story.
As the Labour supporting blog ‘Labour Uncut’ says:
Just because its in the Mail doesn’t make it wrong. Harman, Hewitt and Dromey need to provide some answers
Of course to get the answers you need to ask the questions in the first place…take note BBC [Laura Kuennsberg aside].
the more i read about this story,the more i think this story has all the hallmarks of as big as scandal as the watergate scandal was in america in the 70s,the same era when the labour party had this affilliation with the paedophile information exchange when they existed in the 70s,this is serious stuff indeed, very serious,what really sends shivers up my spine is not the fact that that seniour members of the last labour goverment was in collusion with this vile paedophile group in the 70s,that bad enough,but the fact that harriet harmans husband jack dromey is now the labour partys shadow police minister at the moment,that is very worrying to me,very worrying.i think the defence of sorry guv i aint done nothing wrong is just not good enough,i will go one step further,i think that the mets serious crime agency should be stepping and launching a full investigation into the paedophile information exchange and anybody or any group that had links to this vile organisation in the 70s and should fall into the catergory of operation yewtree and the jimmy saville inquiry.simple as that.
You should have a look at ”Conspiracy of Silence”, a tale of the American political establishment and child abuse, this documentary was never aired, I wonder why ?? This is a boot leg copy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asvl6kO1Vo8
There`s an alternative comedy event locally here tonight in my town.
Hoping to get in cheap and do a couple of minutes riffing on PIE needing now to restore their reputation by apologising for any previous links to Harman and Hewitt..and” Mrs “Harman who seems to be interested in Carribean banana sustainablility for his Rough Trade..sorry Fair Trade credentials(oo er Missus).
I will end on the wish now to draw a coke line under all this and try and rehabilitate the memory of Jimmy Savile, if that takes the pressure off Labour…
Should be fun…and if I`m allowed to finish, will think of the true grit of this site like yourself pounce!
Thanks for this-incredible!
I meant David Brims of course! Cultural onanism and self-congrats are the BBCs thing…Harman and Dromey spring to mind…urgh.
Harman is Haram from now on!
If you think that’s incredible, look what’s hidden on the dollar bills. New World Order here we come !
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEglOXoazWc
The new $100 dollar bill.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blVXzYPQnig
With how the bBC was so quick to curtail any criticism of how Jim fixed it for so many children to have a taste of his PIE. How it refuses to refer to Islamic rape gangs who target young ( underage) girls as pedophiles and how so may bBC presenters have been found to allowed their fingers do the walking on the children’s section of the yellow pages. Is it any surprise how the bBC has gone all out in which to defend Harman.
The bBC: Buggering British Children
There`s an alternative comedy event locally here tonight in my town.
Hoping to get in cheap and do a couple of minutes riffing on PIE needing now to restore their reputation by apologising for any previous links to Harman and Hewitt..and” Mrs “Harman who seems to be interested in Carribean banana sustainablility for his Rough Trade..sorry Fair Trade credentials(oo er Missus).
I will end on the wish now to draw a coke line under all this and try and rehabilitate the memory of Jimmy Savile, if that takes the pressure off Labour…
Should be fun…and if I`m allowed to finish, will think of the true grit of this site like yourself pounce!
There was something I noticed about the BBC’s reaction to the NCCL-PIE-Harman story. There was a certain similarity to the way they reacted over Savile. For several days they hoped the whole thing would go away if ignored. With Savile the BBC with help from the Guardian played a dead bat with “the BBC denies” stories. But the rest of the press did not shut up. The story did not go away. Debate was not closed down.
With the Harman affair they chose to ignore it. I expect they thought it would blow over, go away. But instead the rest of the press picked up the story and ran with it. So eventually they could not ignore it.
Why the change? Well any serious new organisation had to deal with such a story if it gained enough momentum. So an opportunity was given to Harriet Hateman to come on Newsnight and deal with the story head on (the sort of thing Blair and Mandelson would do usually in an effective way – “Pretty straight sort of guy” style comments). Instead of an apology, “error of judgement” sort of statement that would probably have worked, the spectacularly dim witted Harman just kept on digging her own grave.
Harman’s problem is that her years of hatred towards the Daily Mail make it difficult for her to be seen to be forced BY THEM into any action. Her logic breaks down.
When it comes to tribal politics it is often “my side right or wrong” (one can see that when various comments from lefties during the Savile outrage claimed that phone hacking was worse than paedophilia). But when the story relates to these sort of allegations that default position does not wash.
Neither does the “Times were different then” argument. How can it be different when the issue in question is treating a bunch paedophiles as an oppressed minority.
Harman’s cack handed response has left her forever with a label the right will use about her forever – the Nonce’s friend.
Peter Hitchens is always saying that New Labour, far from being the reasonable, middle-of-the-road party that was portrayed to the media and public, was actually full of dangerous subversives.
This just reinforces that Hitchens is right, as far as I’m concerned.
From the 1983 Mail clipping. The NCCL Legal Secretary Marie Staunton went on to be director of Amnesty International, and now (or until recently) headed an organisation called Plan International UK, which is a children’s charity. Didn’t the perverts do-well.
If Staunton is claiming that the NCCL’s position was objective, i.e. not endorsing PIE but simply defending its right to free speech then I trust Harman/Hewitt/Staunton/Chakribatti will all come out strongly against ‘hate-speech’ as it is ‘free-speech’.
Also I did not listen to the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation yesterday, but on Today headlines so far no mention of Hewitt’s ‘apology’, or suggestion that it undermine’s Harman’s ‘regrets’. Goebbels must be turning in his ash-tray.
She got a CBE too. Can’t say here I feel about that. It would be deleted.
http://www.raleighinternational.org/news-centre/feature-articles/1714-honours-for-marie-staunton-and-mike-spurling
She gets £160K a year for part-time work on the BT Board – just as obscene. I wouldn’t trust her to run a whelk shop
‘there’s no accusation that she acted in any way to support the paedophiles’ ?
But as legal officer she must have known that NCCL supported PIE members with legal assistance
‘ Miss Hewitt told a committee of campaigners – including a man later convicted as a sex offender – that a legal department headed by Harriet Harman would look at cases of sex between adults and children aged 14 to 16.’
So offering legal advice and case reviews isn’t supporting?
I would think that any organisation worth its salt would look into bodies seeking affiliation. One would only need to look at the objectives of PIE to know not to touch them with a barge pole.
That the NCCL accepted them reflects badly on them and says something about the mind set of the left during that period. It shows a monumental misjudgement – though in Harman’s case I have always thought she at best lacked common sense but more probably was fairly stupid.
True Frank I have no respect for her but do pity her [which in my book is worse then hate !] she is very confused and I don’t think things are good at home with the wife Mr’s Dromey as he keeps mistakenly getting linked to twitter feeds of men with big “£$% er ‘things ‘!
I’m sure she will come through it Mat. At times like this being thick as two short planks can be a comfort.
Remember the NCCL refused affiliation and support for the National Front in the 1970s adn 1980s and also refused Nick Griffin an individual membership.
Is being a Nationalist worse than being a Child rapist? According to the progressive lefties it clearly was.
Excellent compilation of the evidence! The BBC, now reluctantly covering the story, continues to peddle Harman’s line, letting her get away with the myth that it is a row between Labour and the Daily Mail. Why don’t they ask her about all the other reports over the years about NCCL/ PIE, in the Guardian, Telegraph, Private Eye, etc?
Yes, it will interesting to see what Private Eye has to say about this in the next issue. Will they run with the fox or the hounds? I suppose it will depend on where Hislop feels his income is best served from.
‘Daily Mail’:-
“Explosive new evidence links Patricia Hewitt to paedophile group’s calls for age of consent to be lowered to just 10 and that incest should not be a crime.
“Former Labour cabinet minister was general secretary of NCCL in 1970s.
“Hewitt says she takes responsibility for the mistakes made at the time.
“65-year-old adds that NCCL was ‘naive and wrong’ over links with PIE.
“But documents cast doubt on claims she never ‘condoned’ child abusers.”
By MICHAEL SEAMARK and MARK DUELL
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569570/Patricia-Hewitt-breaks-silence-groups-links-National-Council-Civil-Liberties-boss.html#ixzz2ubroIw6Y
Michael Seamark and Mark Duell somehow I doubt they’ll ever be appointed chief Labour-propagandist, I mean News Editor for the Quisling Broadcasting Corporation.
The second charity mentioned in that newspaper clipping – the Princedale Trust – is interesting.
Trust Deed dated 15/7/74
Date Registered 18/11/74
PIE founded October 1974.
Just a coincidence maybe. The £86,000 it had received by the time of that clipping, 1977, is around £430,000 in today’s money.
The Princedale Trust ceased to exist in 2008.
Great piece Alan-saves us all a lot of trouble!
1. Wasn`t it Harman that signed off on that NCCL/PIE report to the Labour Home Secretary in 1978. asking for consideration to be given in lowering the age of consent?…Did she…or did she not?
The Mail showed something that proves this as I recall…and until she says she did not advocate this as their legal officer..she is toast.
And all we see now id lefty arrogance refusing to say sorry, to try and sweep hypocrisy and stench under their own red carpet…and keep those jobs and quangos going as they smear, insinuate and aquirm.
More Mandelson and Blunkett that Carrington or Burley…the left can do no ther than leach off the taxpayer-at least Tories can find jobs outside that dunghill that is liberal politics.
2. The BBC poppet on last nights News at Ten said that it was all well and good that Hewitt apologised…but as a sitting MP and Labour Deputy Leader, Harmans apology , if given, would have …er “serious consequences/ramifications”.
Whatever does she mean?…getting sued?…losing her berth on the BBC?…answers required fast…
This one is going to run…
Just thinking how many of those far to the left of Labour have this kind of past? Lots of the newly resurrected Class War Thatcher’s death celebrating anarchists and socialists were busy handing out copies of the Little Red Schoolbook to children during the seventies.
“Patricia Hewitt reportedly proposed lowering the age of consent to 10”
http://descrier.co.uk/politics/2014/02/patricia-hewitt-reportedly-proposed-lowering-age-consent-10/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=patricia-hewitt-reportedly-proposed-lowering-age-consent-10
A point of information, Prof. Roger Scruton is a very eminent conservative philosopher and academic – very far indeed from a ‘Leftie’. He is, most definitely, one of the ‘good guys’.
Agreed entirely-and to have such a great and thoughtful philosopher being shouted over by empty vessels on last weeks Question Time, only showed us how reduced politics has become.
To have a Liz Kendall or a Philip Hammond on the show shouting over him(in Kendalls case anyway) showed us that we no longer have thinkers-just empty suits with Alistair Campbells spite and Owen Jones intellect.
Or is that the other way round?…WGAF…who gives a f***?
“Looking back to the great British paedophile infiltration campaign of the 1970s”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/looking-back-to-the-great-british-paedophile-infiltration-campaign-of-the-1970s-9155610.html
What no one is saying (least of all the BBC!) is that the tactics used by PIE are exactly the same as those from other single issue pressure groups, whose malign influence so distorts British politics and who provide so much of the ‘information’ pumped out by the Corporation.
This is nothing new for the BBC.
When the Telegraph first broke the expenses scandal in Parliament their first exposures were of government ministers.
First the BBC ignored it, then they went into smear mode against the Telegraph suggesting that the paper was “poisoning democracy” and the expenses fiddle was “no big deal”.
When the Telegraph produced the second tranche of expense fiddling which highlighted those Conservatives who were at the trough, all of a sudden the BBC changed tack. Now it was acceptable to report the scandal and BBC “comedy” shows were at the forefront of digs about “cleaning moats” and “duck houses”. Why them? Because they were linked to Conservatives.
The BBC really is beyond redemption and the only remedy is to remove the TV tax altogether and make the Augean stables pay per view.
I forgot to point out that the government of the day at the time of the expenses scandal revelations was none other than Labour and the House Speaker was Gorbals Mick, one of the biggest troughers, ably backed up by the grotesque George Foulkes.
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/shocking-report-claims-young-asian-6728673……jack dromey is the mp for erdington.birmingham,maybe they should him to for advice on this
As BBC-NUJ knows, but is disinclined to say:-
“Patricia Hewitt paedophile apology ‘isolates’ Harman”
http://www.theweek.co.uk/politics/57518/patricia-hewitt-paedophile-apology-isolates-harman?
For BBC-NUJ to investigate?-
“The Left’s web of shame:
” It’s not just Harman, Dromey and Hewitt. As we reveal, many other members of Britain’s ruling liberal elite held senior posts at the NCCL when it was closely linked to paedophiles.
“Chief coroner Peter Thornton and lawyer Geoffrey Robertson among them.
“They were at National Council for Civil Liberties in late 70s and early 80s.
“Group called for consent age to be lowered to 14 or even 10 in some cases.”
By LEO MCKINSTRY.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2570675/The-Lefts-web-shame-Its-not-just-Harman-Dromey-Hewitt-As-reveal-members-Britains-ruling-liberal-elite-held-senior-posts-NCCL-closely-linked-paedophiles.html#ixzz2uhouw5yw
Wow, this is a great list of lefty scum isn`t it?
Could really muck out the barn if this lot were cauterised.
Note that line in the middle-that the PIE were “invited” to affiliate by a NCCL woman called Pollard(mum of Vicki?)
No further questions….let`s pray for the needed resignations now…
For BBC-NUJ-
“David Cameron tells Harriet Harman to say sorry.
“David Cameron piled pressure on Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman last night, calling on her to apologise over links with a paedophile group.”
By Macer Hall.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/462447/David-Cameron-tells-Harriet-Harman-to-say-sorry
Apologise? Surely we have reached the point where these people should be being asked to resign. The fact that they are not suggests that there is a lot more dirt there waiting to be dug up, trouble is the longer they try to hold out, the harder the **** will hit them (Remember the Monty Python spoof quiz show, ‘Blackmail’?). Or else, this is displaying a stupefying level of political naivity. Remember “vote Liberal or we’ll shoot your dog”? The Paedophile Party, as supported by the pBC, will haunt them both for decades.
Trouble with these career politicians is that they have no alternative existence, take away their trough and they are nothing. that’s why they cling on to power in such a distasteful way long after the game is up.
You have nailed several good points here Max.
What is the point of an apology now – after several days claiming they has done nothing wrong. It would be rather pointless. Like putting in a plea of mitigation after being found guilty.
I think that all political parties are aware of skeletons in the bedroom closet.
Then there are the Dromey’s who have worked in politics, the student union world of the NCCL or Trade Union officialdom and don’t seem to have an understanding of how the rest of us, the ordinary public view this sort of issue and the cack handed way they have dealt with it…..and neither, for that matter does the public sector insulated world of the BBC.
here it is
And this from the Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2014/mar/01/labour-votes-on-membershipunion-reforms-at-special-conference-politics-live-blog
“I got the impression that there was a particularly loud cheer for Harman. There is nothing like being attacked by the Daily Mail to boost your standing in the Labour party.”
They’re deranged.
Heard the awful News Quiz last night.
Those fearless seekers after truth like Hardy and Rifkind seemed to go to some trouble to steer clear of the Harman/NCCL story didn`t they?
Who`d have thought that a welfare inequality report that none of us knew of last week could create ten minutes of “humour” re posh boys and toffs, Tories and UKIP?
Embarrassing…but the BBC will have received their “dogging biscuits” from Labour for not mentioning the war!…or unpleasantness as they`ll call it.
Scum!
‘Telegraph’ (£)-
“NCCL paedophilia scandal:
Patricia Hewitt’s apology blows Harriet Harman’s last defence out of the water”
By Dan Hodges.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100261646/nccl-paedophilia-scandal-patricia-hewitts-apology-blows-harriet-harmans-last-defence-out-of-the-water/
Is Peter Tatchell A Paedophile Or Simply Misunderstood?
http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2014/02/20/is-peter-tatchell-a-paedophile-or-simply-misunderstood/
This will blow over and be largely forgotten.
Since there are no accusations of direct support for peadophiles and no accusations of crime, even the Mails original accusation of being an “Apologist for peadophiles” has been withdrawn on T.V., most people don’t understand what this is about.
It will be yesterdays chip paper soon enough…
Tomorrows chip paper?
They started off saying the same thing about Jimmy Savile. There may be no crime but the mud will stick