Much as I dislike Mr and Mrs Dromey, no, they shouldn’t have to resign

Toby Young claims that the Dromeys must go (should that be Dromies?):

I still can’t quite believe it. But here’s the evidence in black and white. In 1976, the NCCL put out a press release proposing that the age of consent be lowered to 14 “with special provisions for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over ten can be proved”. So let me get this straight. If the NCCL had had its way, a paedophile could induce a 10-year-old child to have sex with him and, provided he could “prove” he or she had consented, that child’s parents would have no legal redress?

I’m not, I admit, in favour of men my age being able to have sex with children of 10 years of age. Not, actually, keen on 11 year olds being able to have sex with 10 year olds.

However, I do try to remind myself that the past is another country, they did things differently there. And it was what, a week ago, that we were all saying that while we don’t particularly think that DJs should grope 16 year olds that wasn’t quite the situation in the 70s. The star struck poppets did rather offer themselves up as sexual playthings to those with any modicum of fame.

For mores, especially sexual ones, were indeed different back then. And I’ve a very strong feeling indeed that we need to recall that all of these things were rather different back then.

I’ll grant that those who were most vociferous over the Cornflake also get to be shouty about the Dromii. Also that those, like me, who regard it as difficult, to say the least, to impose today’s morality on the past are at least being logically consistent. But there is a certain Murphyness creeping in here, that if my enemies did it then burn the witches, while if my friends did it then humph, so what?

There is one fair routethat one could take, which would be to ask if Dromia was among those witch hunting those who shagged 16 year olds while also considering, back at that time, that the law should be changed to that they could screw 10 year olds. But that would simply be the charge of hypocrisy and when have we ever expected a politician to be free of that?

79 thoughts on “Much as I dislike Mr and Mrs Dromey, no, they shouldn’t have to resign”

  1. Another point is that if the Dromii were forced out of the political limelight, they would be able to perpetrate their socialist wickedness virtually unchallenged. Better to leave them where we can keep an eye on them.

  2. So Much For Subtlety

    However, I do try to remind myself that the past is another country, they did things differently there. …. For mores, especially sexual ones, were indeed different back then.

    We should only persecute elderly German SS Guards if they didn’t really believe it? As long as they really believed Jews were out to get them, it doesn’t matter?

    OK that is a little strong. But there is a question of character and judgement here. What sort of sick psycho thinks that middle aged men shagging 10 years old is fine? It was not that mores were different. It is that people like this wished they were. They had changed society enormously and they wanted to do so some more. I doubt anyone in Britain at the time over 35 thought shagging 10 year olds was fine at the time. It was the people who hated fuddy duddies who wanted to legalise everything.

    Which goes back to their lack of judgement then and their presumably continuing lack of judgement now.

    But it is not worth resigning over. Just for the rest of us to hold them in perpetual contempt.

  3. Vociferous as I am on these issues, I tend to think that this is a good time not to light three cigarettes with one match. The Daily Mail has played a blinder.

    I think Daycare and his mob are quite aware of the past being another country and all that. He’s not a fool, he’s a shit stirrer, and he knows the Paedo Three are over a barrel. They can’t say anything in their own defence without (a) refuting everything the entire Feminist movement (la Harman in particular) have been throwing around about abuse since SRA. Neither can they discuss their reason for being involved with PIE at all without fingering the Gay Rights Movement, thus undermining that great cause of the modern Left.

    So, they’re screwed basically. Standing in front of the headmistress, unable to admit why they were behind the bike sheds with their knickers down without making things even worse.

    I am not sure there is anyone on this Earth who is not already convicted of some heinous crime that I despise more than Dacre, but on this one you’ve got to admit that what he does, he’s very good at.

  4. but in the past, this sort of thinking wasn’t acceptable, either. Some attitudes have changed, especially in relation to 16-18 year olds. Millions of people looked at pictures of Page 3 girls that are now classed as illegal. We used to deal with teachers shagging 6th formers as the sort of thing you got fired for, rather than a criminal record.

    And I don’t want them to resign at all. Harman’s far more useful sat as deputy leader and losing votes for Labour.

  5. Nice post Tim. Ticks all the boxes for the forces of reason. Which is why the forces of reason don’t seem to be winning very often these days.
    The left would have absolutely no problem in spinning a narrative around this would have their opponents hustled out of office in days. What would become a “fact” would be whatever embroidered version of the truth they’d managed to sell. There’s already sly disinformation comments appearing in papers on the theme “Don’t look at this. What about the unnamed network of kiddie fiddlers in another party” No evidence, whatsoever, supplied.
    It’s all very well to be playing the straight bat. But this isn’t bloody cricket. You get the opportunity, you put them on the ground & keep kicking till they go soggy. That’s what they’d do to you.

  6. ” We used to deal with teachers shagging 6th formers as the sort of thing you got fired for, rather than a criminal record.”

    In Frank Skinner’s autobiography he claims that the reason he became a sixth form lecturer (English I think) rather than a secondary teacher was that it was allowed, and not really disapproved of, to shag plentifully the students. Now anyone who does that gets to become a registered sex offender. Similarly, by modern standards Rupert Murdoch may have been one of the largest scale peddlers of child porn in history. Given the discrepancy in attitudes, I think there must be plenty of people with fingers crossed that nothing comes out of the woodwork.

  7. Ian B,

    Harman is just such an easy opponent. She’s really rather incompetent, not only in office but also as a politician.

    And bizarrely went on the attack about it, including the Daily Mail’s sidebar (I’ve never understood the accusation about photos referring to teenagers as pretty or “all grown up” – that’s the sort of thing you hear great aunts gossiping about).

  8. So Horrible Harbinger is a paedophile-o-phile. That reminds me that “paedophile” sounds like a word invented to put the phenomenon in an unwarrantedly good light. I’d rather see her described as a pederast-o-phile. Was there much of that sort of thing at that second rate boarding school you attended, Tim?

  9. Ever since Dromey jumped that all female shortlist and his other half said zilch , they deserve all they get. Marquess of Queensberry rules can go outta the window with this odious pair.

  10. Dearieme-

    I can’t confirm this, but it seems to me pretty much that how “paedophile” got out of the DSM and into the general lexicon was thanks to PIE. They seem to have adopted it as an attempt to rebrand “pederast” with something more neutral sounding, in order to pursue an identity group approach to legitimising kiddie fiddling. In the States, they went for “man boy love”.

  11. “And it was what, a week ago, that we were all saying that while we don’t particularly think that DJs should grope 16 year olds that wasn’t quite the situation in the 70s. “

    Yes, indeed. So? We’re only suggesting, after all, that they be hoist on their own petard.

    *gets more popcorn*

  12. No, the creeps should resign.

    In that other country, the past, we knew who was a child and who wasn’t, every bit as much as we know now. Discussions about our attitude to late teenagers (6th formers)are a deflection and we know it. We knew what the PIE was, as did Dromey, Harman and Hewitt. They were disgusted by PIE but chose to carry on building their careers anyway. The evidence is there; their denials now are false.

    I don’t care how useful it is to have Harman as the poster girl for Labour’s degeneracy, kick her out of public life.

  13. The Laughing Cavalier

    “It emerged yesterday that Mr Dromey had attended an NCCL committee meeting in January 1976 that approved the policy of lowering the age of consent to 10 and decriminalising incest where both parties consented.

    Mr Dromey became NCCL chairman two months later.

    In the same month, Mrs Hewitt issued an official press release proposing the lowering of the age of consent to 14, “with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age, or where consent of a child over 10 can be proved”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10670419/Labour-MPs-child-sex-link-row-deepens.html

    The credibility gap grows wider as the facts, the memos that they wrote and the minutes of the committee meetings they attended come to light at last.

  14. That rebranding of ‘pederast’ went well. I doubt that one in 20 people these days knows what it means, but 19 in 20 will know exactly what the other one means.

  15. I’m not so sure people were all that different back then. Teenagers may have grown up a little quicker, as many kids today don’t leave school till they’re eighteen. Age of consent may have been a little foggy and girls and boys had less protection under the law, but paedophilia was never acceptable.

  16. No, Tim, no way.

    There might have been less awareness of paedophilia, but very very few people thought it was OK for adults to fuck 10 year olds back then..

    You could argue that the NCCL would have been justified in defending the right of PIE to free speech, no matter how repellent their views. They didn’t need to affiliate for that. But the NCCL actively supported and promoted the PIE’s aims, which were basically that the law be changed so that perverts could fuck kids too young to make their own decisions about sex and get away with it.

    The only people that thought this might be OK were the nonces themselves and a certain deluded wing of the hard left that thought parental control(ie protection) of children was some sort of reactionary/patriarachal evil. Some of these people were the same of course.

    Cunts. All of them.

    The nation needs reminding of the fundamental moral corruption of the left and what it leads to.

  17. Can’t help notice PIE’s posted address was c/o Release.
    Release were the goto if you needed springing on a drug bust, back in the day. The Release people were also a reliable goto if a connection to some righteous dope was required.
    Like the NCCL these people paint(ed) themselves as white knights of justice & liberty. But they were also facilitators. As were the NCCL. Part of a low level “war” dedicated to undermining the society of the time. The idea they were in any way neutral is nonsense. PIE would have been welcome for its destabilising potential. Don’t suppose Dromey, Harman or Hewitt gave a passing thought to what they stood for. It was pure ends justifying means. They were interested in creating areas of conflict. Damned successful, too.
    And quite honestly, I don’t suppose Chami’s re-branded Liberty’s much different.

  18. How the hell did the NCCL deteriorate from a respectable Communist Front into a Maoist/Trotskyist/Pederast alliance? I think we should be told.

  19. It occurs to me that it’s Sunday, Tim. Where is your traditional “Willie Hutton is an arsehole” post? Separate point: was Hutton a member of the NCCL?

  20. Will Hutton is an arsehole.

    I think that just about covers it; Tim can take the rest of the day off.

  21. @ Rob

    “That rebranding of ‘pederast’ went well. I doubt that one in 20 people these days knows what it means, but 19 in 20 will know exactly what the other one means.”

    On the contrary, hardly anyone seems to know what ‘peadophile’ means. It doesn’t mean a bloke wot fancies 15-year-olds, for starters.

    And it’s all quite important, and the difference between those attempts to lower the age of consent to 14, and to potentially to allow for ‘consensual’ activity at the age of 10, is vast – because that four years is, in most cases, the period during which sexual attraction moves from being naturally suspect, to being ‘merely’ socially/legally suspect.

  22. On the contrary, hardly anyone seems to know what ‘peadophile’ means. It doesn’t mean a bloke wot fancies 15-year-olds, for starters.

    Unfortunately, English being a living language, the usage of the work, much like that of “nice” or, more recently, “discriminating” has moved away from the original or technical meaning.

    I strongly suspect far fewer people know what a “hebephile” is than do a “pederast”. Even though the important distinction between pedo- and hebe- is the distinction between “un-natural” and “natural” attraction.

    Ed notes: I apologise for the (ab)use of the word ‘natural’ above, but couldn’t really think of a better shortening for ‘likely to be a successful evolutionary method for the continuation of the species and, particularly, those bits represented by your genes’.

  23. Further to TTG’s comment: paedophilia is a condition, pederasty is an action. The conflation of a term for a mental disorder with child abuse is a good example of what’s wrong with the media.

    Not to mention that even pederasty isn’t necessarily child abuse. The younger party can be above the age of consent. It also only covers homosexual relationships. I’m not sure if there’s a proper term for heterosexual relationships of that type apart from ‘cradle snatcher’…

  24. I see I should have refreshed…

    The problem with the living-language thing is that generally imprecise/evolving word usage doesn’t result in people getting branded as monsters and convicted in the court of public opinion.

    From what I’ve read it seems that the initial allegations against Saville indicate that he was a creepy old man. But by using the term ‘paedo’ the media has grouped him in with people who fancy 5 year olds.

  25. I would usually agree with Tim’s viewpoint but not this time. The PIE bit is not that relevant anymore–whatever they actually did–not the same as what they might have advocated–is long ago. The issue now is :

    Why should leftist scum–esp femmi-trash like Harmbag, who have instigated the paedo-hysteria for their own evil, man-attacking purposes, escape the “justice” that the media yahoos and costumed thugs hand out to all other accused?.
    Why should a gang of leftist pukes, who have spent decades helping their fellow leftist pukes demonise men, escape the consequences of their own evil?. Everybody else in their place would be shat on from a great height, but the balm of sweet reason must be reserved for leftist scum who have ensured that you won’t get any such consideration if you fall into the grinding machine (for men) that they have helped create?.
    If anyone on this blog was accused they would be sacked–not “forced” to resign and the bluebottles would at once begin the scummy process of trawling to see if any mad bag wants to say you molested her 99 years ago. For a seleb like Harm-bag I bet there would be a legion of loopy lesbians willing to come forward. The fact that she had never set eyes on most of them or perhaps brushed against one of them in a lift in 1968 might bring home to Hattie Hagbag the wickedness of inviting false, malicious and unproven accusations against people decades after the supposed event.

  26. Who else in the Labour Party is old enough for an enterprising reporter to demand to know whether they were members of NCCL in that period? Presumably not “big” Ed, but was Blair old enough? Brown? Margaret bloody Becket, Jacqui bloody Smith, that noxious wee rodent Jack Straw, Peter Hain, Gerald ‘cuntface’ Kaufman, Keith Vaz, Wedgie-Benn’s wee boy, Wedgie-Benn himself, Lord ‘let ’em drown’ Smith, Jack Cunningham, Alan Milburn, Charlie Falconer, Derry Irvine, Letterbox Blair, Alan Johnston, et bloody cetera?? I know, Arthur Scargill? Bob Crow?

    Time for some Freedom of Information on the Pederastophile Files.

  27. @dearieme

    Might be worth adding the journalistocracy to your list.
    I wonder what La Toynbee was up to, for instance…

  28. Most amusing is the fact that the odious cunt Geoffrey Robertson QC was on the NCCL executive through this era along with the Dromies et al. You know, the man who wanted Pope Benedict arrested on his visit to the UK. I hope the press picks up that smokescreen and roasts the hypocritical bastard.

  29. Nice catch Dr C; nice suggestion BiS. How about the Beeb – I’ll bet it’s full of of rancid pederastophiles from that period. The Arts Council? NSPCC? Tally-ho!

  30. It does occur to me that there is a strange parallel here between PIE and the Daily Mail; they are both organisations who should always be treated as in the wrong even when they appear to be saying something reasonable.

  31. It was once said of the French Revolution that “the Revolution devours its children”. The same appears to be true of the sexual revolution, in more ways than one.

  32. This is not the sexual revolution. That’s the sad thing. It’s a demonstration of how the crazy left derailed and destroyed it.

  33. A PIE membership list would be interesting. One must exist somewhere. I expect a few senior people in politics and the media are shitting themselves at the moment.

  34. Let us also savour Hewitt’s “taking of full responsibility”. Nothing has actually happened to her, of course, or ever will. It is the classic New Labour “taking responsibility”, a meaningless empty phrase designed to spike the guns and hang on to power.

  35. A PIE membership list would be interesting. One must exist somewhere. I expect a few senior people in politics and the media are shitting themselves at the moment.

    Unlikely. They were long ago rounded up by Plod and sevred various sentences. Some of them are still inside. IIRC, a remnant were put inside a while ago for having some Japanese cartoons, games and even their own rude drawings, as soon as that law came in.

  36. It’s not the membership list you want. It’s the little helpers list. Those favourable to the cause but not wishing to associated
    There will be one. Wonder who might have had access & used the contents, over the years?

  37. I can’t be bothered to search for the quotes, but I seem to recall that Harperson said that the defence of “it was different back then…” (ie: in the cases of Travis, Hall, etc) was unacceptable. It is, therefore, a defence not open to her or baldy.

  38. Harriet Harman has repeatedly said it’s “wrong” for grown heterosexual men to look at topless pictures of grown women who consented to be on page 3 of tabloid newspapers.

    Harriet Harman also chose to work as a senior employee of an organisation that publicly sought to allow paedophiles sexual access to primary school aged children. She knew full well what she was doing.

    As a father, my harsh but fair conclusion is that Harriet Harman should be hanged from the neck until dead.

  39. I’ve not been following this story – it’s in the Mail – so I haven’t grasped what Dromey and Harman are supposed to have done wrong. As I understand it, Dromey took over as chairman of the NCCL shortly after its wrong-headed press release, and spoke out against PIE at the subsequent AGM. Harman joined two years later, not as part of the executive.

  40. PaulB – that seems to be the Dromedary version of events, but unless the Mail is preparing to going down in a kamikaze libel case, they have the Harpeople dead to rights.

    So the facts seem to be that:

    Harman joined the NCCL as a law officer – a law officer, mind you, not a cleaner or receptionist or some other junior employee who might not be expected to know better – while it was still committed to enabling paedos to interfere with 10 year olds.

    Her husband was on the NCCL executive while it was campaigning to legalise paedophile activities and his alleged intervention against the Paedophile Information Exchange seems weak at best. PIE remained affiliated with the NCCL for several years until after he left. Doesn’t sound like Jack was going out of his way to dissociate the organisation he worked for from its child molestor friends.

  41. PaulB-

    What they did wrong can be either construed as (a) being involved with PIE at all or (b) not merely defending PIE’s right to speak, but actively promoting PIE policies or (c) not predicting the radical change in conceptualisation of these issues that would occur around a decade later.

    One way to look at it perhaps is that Harman et al merely mirror the ideological transformation that their entire class has undergone over the past 40 years, from a confused and in some cases wrong-headed libertinism to a prudish authoritarianism. There are probably a great number of elderly boomers who would be embarrassed by attitudes they held in the 1970s. Having made a particular career out of the new dispensation (I have a video of Harman for instance at The Fawcett Society with Therea May and Lynne Featherstone before the last election, saying she wants to shut down Page 3) she is particularly vulnerable. In that sense, this is like a revelation that Ben Summerskill was once a member of the Anti-Poofter League.

  42. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “There are probably a great number of elderly boomers who would be embarrassed by attitudes they held in the 1970s.”

    I doubt it. They would need more self-awareness. I am sure that they continue to hold both views – that they were right in the 1970s and they are right now – at the same time. Because they don’t connect the two.

    This is the one advantage of the Daily Mail’s campaign. It reminds people of what they believed. They should go back and find all the surviving people who defended the Khmer Rouge.

    But you can see this in the total lack of problems people have in condemning paedophilia now – especially when priests do it – while still praising paedophiles from way back when. Especially if they are on the Left. No one condemns Passolini for instance.

  43. So Much for Subtlety

    Theophrastus – “Vote UKIP – get Millipaedo.”

    One thousandth of a Downside teacher?

  44. They should go back and find all the surviving people who defended the Khmer Rouge.

    The irony for me is that we have all this attention on fringe attitudes that had no ultimate effect- however revolting- while ignoring that virtually all of them were active supporters of a form of dictatorship that heaped up tens of millions of bodies. To this day, saying “I was a student communist” is akin to admitting, at most, to some foolish youthful mistake like streaking through the quad.

    Even among those who positively repudiated it, the only one I can think of who has actively condemned their student beliefs is Peter Hitchens. Even Janet Daley (now a neoconservative of a kind) just sort of titters about being a Maoist.

  45. I did say when the wall came down we should have rounded up the bastards and hanged them in public.

  46. I’d say, Ian, that’s because their cronies are scattered through the media. And through the other main political parties, for that matter. They all went to the same universities. They all know each other socially. Whichever the flavour of the current government they all look after each other. All families have their differences of opinion but keeping the family together’s the main priority.
    Trouble is, England has never had a popular political movement of anything else but the left. Not until recently. Hence the vitriol poured on UKIP..They’re not members of the club.

  47. As a mere lefty pre-boomer I think this whole generation should resign from the Labour Party for trying to transform it back then into an amorphous Rainbow Coalition of Civil Rights groups which was dominated by gender groupuscules electing each other to committees etc.The party at roots level spent a disproportionate amount of time debating women’s rights, the civil rights of Catholics in N Ireland ( you could not say in Lefty meetings in Northampton that the Provos were nasty right -wing bastards) and that Patriarchy was the main agent of repression in the UK ( downward pressure on real wages/ upward pressure on house prices :forget it). I am a member of a group that had a serious row only last year when a female conference organiser did not achieve a gender balance in the speakers panel preferring to pick the best people regardless of gender .She had to leave.
    You cannot serve two masters.
    The Rainbows were creepy liberals and belong in that party now.

  48. So Much For Subtlety

    I still don’t think the sh!t should resign, but it is going to impair their effectiveness on any major policy issue they are likely to come near.

    How can they oppose Page Three girls? How long will they last before someone asks them to explain why it ought to be illegal to take pictures of girls over 18 but not boys aged 10?

    How can they oppose arranged marriages? How can it be wrong to marry a 14 year old girl when it is fine to shag one? Even younger if she is your sister, but not if she is your cousin.

    I look forward to the next few Question Times.

  49. SMFS – that’s the bit that strikes me as incredible.

    Ms Harman hasn’t just mentioned Page 3 in passing, she’s been outspoken in attacking it for years. To listen to her, you’d think men with normal, healthy appetites enjoying a picture of a smiling woman’s boobs – a woman who was happy to be photographed showing off said boobs – is a grave injustice.

    And yet she spent years working for an organisation that championed kiddie fiddlers and tried to get the law changed so parents would have no legal recourse against paedophiles who molested “consenting” 10 year olds.

    And she refuses to admit she did anything wrong.

    I’m normally a happy go lucky sort of chap, but this makes my blood boil. If Ed Miliband – socialist nitwit that may be – is the decent concerned father I hope he is, he’ll get rid of that vile woman. Otherwise we’ll be forced to conclude Ed thinks what Harman did was OK.

  50. I haven’t read the whole thread so apologies if others have said this (I’m sure they have) but:

    You cannot win a football match if the other side are playing rugby, and they’ve nobbled the ref.

    We (the non-left) absolutely have to fight with any and all means at our disposal, and if that means lies, half-truths, exaggerations, smears etc then so be it.

    I wish it were not so but the other side have chosen the fighting ground, and it really is a fight for the survival of our way of life.

    In this case none of the above is necessary, they are in it up to their necks.

    As to whether they should resign or stay, I prefer stay for now, allowing the whole thing to drag on, and resign in a month or two.

  51. @DBC ‘you could not say in Lefty meetings in Northampton’

    My heart bleeds. Your sort have been shouting down people with whom you disagreed (and imprisoning or shooting them) for years.

  52. “I look forward to the next few Question Times.”

    It would be really great if it worked like that, wouldn’t it?
    But it won’t but there’ll be no inclination from the media to put them on the spot.
    Couldn’t help but notice the Telegraph’s been running “closed comments” on reports & columnist pieces. Rather timid. They don’t seem to have this problem with other stories, where the subjects are less part of the ruling elite. No doubt they’d say for “legal reasons”. Do me a favour!. Harpic, Dromey or Hewitt. A few other people. The last thing they would want would to be in court being required to answer questions with all evidence subject to examination.

  53. Bloke in Spain – The Telegraph’s been going downhill for years. Not many reasons to read it since Delingpole left. Their online operation now relies on posh young friends of Damian Thomson trolling UKIP fans to sustain traffic. You get the sense they despise their readers for the same reasons David Cameron looks down his nose at traditional Tory voters.

    The sooner it goes behind a paywall and stops stinking up the internet with its wishy washy Cameroonism, the better.

  54. “The sooner it goes behind a paywall and stops stinking up the internet with its wishy washy Cameroonism, the better.”

    Going to put a crimp in Tim’s style, though. There’ll only be the Graun & the Downham Dimbo to take the piss out of. Mail’s hardly worth the bother.

  55. Tim you’re wrong here.

    The only way Harman should be allowed to stay on is if she agreed to be subject to a sever and prolonged kicking in the cvnt.

  56. Bloke in Spain – It’s the wave of the future.

    I’d love to see a Torygraph front page advertorial about how the crisis in Ukraine can be solved with Cillit Bang.

    Tim could always get stuck into The People’s Friend. Those twee bastards have had an easy ride for too long.

  57. So Much for Subtlety

    Bob – “Re: BraveFart, ‘sewer’ also seems appropriate :)”

    I don’t know. I kind of like the sever. Is it possible to kick the Cnut right out of someone? Several of these people, not all of them women, make me want to try.

  58. “…yet she spent years working for an organisation that championed kiddie fiddlers…”

    The only statement we have from the NCCL that sort-of fits that description is twelve words in its (bad and stupid) 1976 press release “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”

    Dromey says that as chairman (starting after that press release) he strongly opposed PIE influence, and such evidence as we have supports him. Harman took her job with the NCCL two years after the press release. There was no championing of kiddie fiddlers on her watch.

    The only sustainable charge against Dromey and Harman seems to be that they didn’t force the disaffiliation from NCCL of PIE. The PIE back then was, so far as the NCCL knew, an advocacy group. It was naive of them to take PIE’s word for it, but having done so, they might well have thought it proper to allow the PIE to affiliate even while disagreeing with the liberties it advocated. I think they were wrong about that, but I don’t need people to apologise to me every time I think they’ve got something wrong.

  59. PaulB – I like to think if I was offered a job with an organisation that had gone on record, a mere two years before, as supporting what amounted to a paedos charter, I’d decline. If, in some moment of madness or desperation, I accepted, and then found out said organisation was still affiliated to a paedophile group, I’d resign.

    As for Mr Harman, there’s a bit more to it than him doing nothing to disaffiliate from PIE. The Mail’s take is:


    You sat on the NCCL’s ruling executive from 1970 to 1979. PIE paid to join as an affiliate in 1974, under your watch.

    In 1975, NCCL lawyers worked with PIE in an effort to gag the Press by helping the group complain to the newspaper watchdog, the Press Council, about a Sunday newspaper article headlined ‘The vilest men in Britain’.

    This occurred while you were on the NCCL’s executive.

    The NCCL’s annual report for the same year declared that NCCL lawyers had ‘acted for some of the men when there were police inquiries as a result of the article’.

    Again, this support for self-confessed paedophiles occurred under your watch.

    Finally, in the NCCL’s 1975 Annual Report, published when you were on the executive, PIE was described as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children’, without a hint of condemnation.

    “The PIE back then was, so far as the NCCL knew, an advocacy group. It was naive of them to take PIE’s word for it”

    So it’s OK if they were just ‘advocating’ for child molestors?

  60. “he only statement we have from the NCCL that sort-of fits that description is twelve words in its (bad and stupid) 1976 press release “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”

    Oh FFS, Paul. That’s the final outcome position, might have conceivably flown as legislation. This was arrived at totally without discussion of less conservative options? If you believe that, that bridge is still up for offers.

  61. Question, Paul.
    is there no asswipe of the left you won’t go in to bat for?
    Be useful to know.

  62. Tim,

    You’re so badly wrong here it’s ridiculous. Seriously, you’re claiming that, way back in the almost mythical mists of 1976, no-one really saw much of a problem with fucking 10-year-olds? You’re deluded.

  63. BiS: it would be more challenging if you asked me if there’s no target of the vile and contemptible Daily Mail I wouldn’t speak for. But I see that I’ve not sought to defend Patricia Hewitt. And no, I don’t know what discussion took place about the wording of that press release: do you?

    Steve: “[if] said organisation was still affiliated to a paedophile group, I’d resign”.
    It wasn’t, so you wouldn’t.

    According to Dromey, and no one has disputed it, he opposed the press release, but he chose to remain in the NCCL and seek to change its approach to the PIE, which he did. It’s OK to stay and work for reform so long as you mean it and so long as you succeed. If he’d resigned, I suppose the NCCL would have co-operated with the PIE for longer. So what’s he supposed to apologise for?

    “So it’s OK if they were just ‘advocating’ for child molestors?”
    It’s important to distinguish between advocating a change in the law, and breaking it. It’s proper for the NCCL, then or now, to defend a person’s right to advocate a change in the law, even if NCCL officers themselves disagree with them, and especially if that advocacy is unpopular.

  64. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “According to Dromey, and no one has disputed it, he opposed the press release, but he chose to remain in the NCCL and seek to change its approach to the PIE, which he did.”

    Well he would say that wouldn’t he? Other people have actually disputed that. And if he was opposed to anything it took him a hell of a long time to get anything done. Given Liberty didn’t kick them out until 1983. Well after the police started prosecuting their entire membership.

    “It’s OK to stay and work for reform so long as you mean it and so long as you succeed.”

    Do you apply that logic to South Africa in the old days? Does he mean it though? He was working with PIE for about a decade. That is a long time to be bringing about what was a fairly obvious change.

    “If he’d resigned, I suppose the NCCL would have co-operated with the PIE for longer. So what’s he supposed to apologise for?”

    If he had loudly resigned, or even threatened to, maybe they would have cut their ties earlier. He is supposed to apologise for spending the best part of a decade arguing on behalf of people who f**ked 10 year old children. You don’t think he should?

    “It’s important to distinguish between advocating a change in the law, and breaking it. It’s proper for the NCCL, then or now, to defend a person’s right to advocate a change in the law, even if NCCL officers themselves disagree with them, and especially if that advocacy is unpopular.”

    But that is not what the NCCL did. They did not stand up for PIE’s right to speak their mind. They stood up for the change in the law they wanted. The NCCL lobbied on behalf of PIE. They defended them. They asked for the law to be changed so that molesting children would be legal. You are outrageously misrepresenting what they did.

    And they seem to have got their way. They wanted incest among small children legalised. It seems to all intents and purposes it has been:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2572252/Boy-12-raped-sister-7-watching-pornography-Xbox-walks-free-court.html

  65. SMFS-

    Your hyperbole about that verdict aside, it again raises the interesting problem; if a person is not old enough to “consent”, how can they be old enough to have “criminal responsibility”? How can their powers of agency and volition be present in one context, but not another?

    Consider the case of the 13 year old girl recently who deliberately seduced and initiated a sexual act on an older man. When the prosecuting counsel dared to suggest that she was partly responsible for the act, the furies were unleashed, and he was suspended. It is impossible, we are told, for anyone under 16 to be responsible for a sexual act. Even if they think they want to, legally that is held to be not a valid decision, because the under-16 has no agency.

    How then, can one prosecute a 12 year old for rape?

    Bit of a conundrum there.

  66. SMFS: if you’ve got any evidence that once Dromey became chairman the NCCL did any of the things you accuse me of misrepresenting, let’s see it.

  67. @Paul
    You’re trying to treat this as a strict evidence matter, in the nature of a criminal prosecution, where “beyond reasonable doubt” is required. But., there’s no prospect of a criminal trial. It’s perfectly permissible to discus balance of probabilities.

    Thus, for instance, if the NCCL made a press release advocating a change in the law, it’s quite reasonable to suppose there would be a debate in NCCL about the wording of that press release. And , bearing in mind NCCL’s association with PIE – who were calling for much greater relaxation of the existing law – some of that debate may well of concerned a more ambitious wording.
    Are you suggesting there was no debate? Or no need for a debate because all parties started from the same position? They all, independently, arrived at the same conclusion.
    The balance of probabilities for that would seem very low.

  68. So Much for Subtlety

    Ian B – “Your hyperbole about that verdict aside, it again raises the interesting problem; if a person is not old enough to “consent”, how can they be old enough to have “criminal responsibility”? How can their powers of agency and volition be present in one context, but not another?”

    Why do you think it is hyperbole? The boy got to go home and watch all the porn he liked – and presumably force his sister to blow him yet again. The law is a dead letter if it is not enforced.

    But is an interesting problem. Not all solutions are prison though. There is a world of half-way measures. I would hope some of them would involve intensive and competent medical intervention. Well, psychiatric. Foster parents. But no. He gets to go home to his Father, his Father’s porn collection. And his sister.

    “It is impossible, we are told, for anyone under 16 to be responsible for a sexual act.”

    Unless they are a boy. If a 15 year old boy is sexually assaulted by a woman and so becomes a father, he will be held liable for child support. Even though he is the victim,

    “How then, can one prosecute a 12 year old for rape? Bit of a conundrum there.”

    But we do it from time to time. At least prosecute the Father.

  69. So Much for Subtlety

    PaulB – “if you’ve got any evidence that once Dromey became chairman the NCCL did any of the things you accuse me of misrepresenting, let’s see it.”

    Once Dromey became chairman is narrowing it down a little. The evidence that the NCCL did exactly what I said it did is overwhelming. If you want to ignore it, that is up to you. I am certainly not misrepresenting anything you said – unless you are now claiming that you did not claim that the NCCL merely lobbied for the PIE’s right of free speech?

    http://order-order.com/2014/02/28/has-dromey-been-telling-porkie-pies/

    “Dromey personally attended a meeting where the minutes of which show:

    “It was agreed that our evidence should propose that if a partner in a sexual relationship was under ten, s/he is presumed incapable of consent. If the partner is over ten and under 14, there is a rebuttable presumption that no consent was given, but the defendant should have to prove that the child consented and understood the nature of the act to which consent was given.”

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568985/PIE-tried-influence-civil-liberties-group-NCCL.html

    Hewitt responded to Mr Hose, in a typed letter on yellow paper seen by The Guardian: ‘Thank you for your letter of 16th December. My apologies for the delay in acknowledging.

    ‘We have found your evidence… most helpful and I think it has certainly been taken into account by the people preparing our evidence.’

    The archive includes a NCCL briefing note that argues that child pornography should not be outlawed in the 1978 child protection bill, the Guardian reported.

    It also records how Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, who started at NCCL in 1978, personally urged changes to the bill that year telling MPs ‘images of children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven the subject suffered’.

    The exchange of letters comes after the Mail can reveal that in 1979, an edition of Magpie, PIE’s official journal, carried the NCCL appeal for new members in an appalling ‘Year of the Child’ edition.

    The Mail can also reveal that former health minister and NCCL general secretary Patricia Hewitt shared a conference platform with PIE leader Tom O’Carroll in 1977.
    ….
    Miss Harman she said the paedophile group ‘had been pushed to the margin’ before she began working there.

    Yet, during the year after she took up her post, the NCCL advert appeared in PIE’s April journal.
    It ran inside a shocking 24-page special edition of the magazine – the cover of which shows a picture of a young boy wearing only a small pair of shorts as he plays tennis.

    It invites Magpie readers to ‘join the NCCL’ and boasts that the organisation is ‘working to protect and extend human rights in the UK’.

    The appeal for new members and donations was published after a feature titled: Child porn, a heterosexual viewpoint.

    So the three of them were taking advice from the PIE and then lobbying for changes in the law to enable them to better molest small children.

  70. BiS: I don’t know what you’re getting at. I’m not speculating about the decision-making process – why is it relevant?

    SMFS: you’ve got a good case against Hewitt there. But no evidence at all that Dromey and Harman were lobbying in the interests of PIE.

    The view Harman expressed about pornography is not very far from my own – things should be banned only if they’re harmful. I disagree with her about the burden of proof on that.

    The advert in the PIE journal is bad. If the NCCL paid for that in 1979 then Dromey does need to apologise.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *