In the Mirror last night: ‘Harriet Harman tonight angrily denied “horrible and untrue” claims she worked for a group that had links to paedophile rights campaigners. The Labour deputy leader broke her silence to say she was the victim of a “politically-motivated smear campaign” by the Daily Mail and had “done nothing wrong”….’
On the BBC last night: ‘Appearing on BBC Two’s Newsnight programme on Monday, she repeatedly sidestepped questions about whether it had been a mistake to allow the Paedophile Information Exchange to be affiliated to the civil liberties group.’ (This is the BBC, by the way, that according to Grant Shapps is a sinbin of loony-Leftism).
Perhaps Hatttie then gave that position the overnight thing.
In the Guardian earlier today: ‘Harriet Harman ‘regrets’ former employer’s link to paedophile lobbyists…Less than 12 hours after the Labour party’s deputy leader told BBC’s Newsnight that she was the victim of a smear campaign by the Daily Mail over the NCCL’s links to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), Harman’s office issued a statement expressing regret about the links’.
Let’s try and get to the facts here. From 1978 to 1982, Harman was legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties, which was the predecessor to campaign group Liberty. The affiliation of PIE to the NCCL took place before she joined; but then, Hattie was the legal officer at the NCCL. Was she comfortable with PIE’s affiliation, given it was lobbying for a depraved and illegal form of rape to be legalised? The impression La Harman is trying to give this morning is almost that she wasn’t aware of PIE:
‘There is no evidence to suggest that Ms Harman, Mr Dromey or Ms Hewitt personally supported the views of PIE,’ says the Mirror. I’m sorry, but I see no difference at all between that defensive observation, and Lord McAlpine pretending he’d never heard of his pervert cousin Jimmie McAlpine. Harman was the legal officer: if she was against PIE, surely she should have made their ejection from NCCL affiliation a priority.
Yesterday, she released a statement saying the Daily Mail was “not entitled” to “smear me with innuendo because they disagree with me politically and hate my values”. In which case Hat, why not sue the arse off Dacre the Mad? After all Duckie, we’d all enjoy his discomfiture.
But is it just innuendo? Harman went out of her way to say how “the protection of children” had been a priority during her political career. But the facts don’t back that assertion up. As I posted five years ago when running the website notbornyesterday,
‘The Minister for Women Harriet Harman in 2006 told the Commons, “The idea that people are sent to prison without any reports of the proceedings makes even more important the work that we are undertaking with the family courts, and with the important intervention of the Constitutional Affairs Committee, to open them up so that they act in the public interest while maintaining personal privacy.”
In April 2009, the Government allowed media ‘access’ to the Secret Family Courts – but effectively neutered it by insisting that ‘In the interests of children, for the safety and protection of parties or witnesses (or persons connected with them), for the orderly conduct of proceedings, or where justice would otherwise be prejudiced, the court will have the power to restrict the attendance of the media’.
This was merely gesture government. Harman promised yet again (three years later in 2009 when she’d done nothing substantive at all) to “revise the law on reporting restrictions as soon as parliamentary time allows”. Time did not allow. She left office having broken the promise twice.
But much earlier when she actually was already legal officer for the NCCL – in April 1978 – it published a briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill that was before Parliament. It’s author was, well I never, Harriet Harman – who thought the Bill illiberal because as a result of its key clauses, adults caught with nude children piccies would have to prove they owned them with a view to “scientific or learned study”.
Er….seems to me that’s an entirely sensible clause. But not content with this pro-paedophile comment, Harman added with no little satisfaction, “Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed”. This is making “the protection of children a priority”?
The reality is this: Harriet Harman is and always was primarily concerned with the protection of human rights…and far less interested in the victims of those ‘rights’. Myself, I believe there is no such thing as inalienable human rights. But I and all of my social circle would regard proving the child wasn’t harmed to be a ridiculous way to approach genuine protection of childhood innocence.
She and her husband Jack Dromey insist they fought against PIE. Am I the only one who cannot remember a single instance where this couple stood up in the media against liberalised insanity?
But what of the third member of the NCCL Troika – the unlovely and hopelessly naive former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt? So far she has kept well away from any and all debate and public statements about this “row”.
This may well explain why. In 1982,the future Labour health boss Hewitt authored and published The Police and Civil Liberties, in which she discussed the imprisonment of Tom O’Carroll, secretary of the Paedophile Information Exchange, for conspiracy to corrupt public morals. “Conspiring to corrupt public morals is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof,” wrote Hewitt. She specifically argued that O’Carroll’s involvement in peddling child porn did not excuse “the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution”.
This too is not the genuine voice of a grounded moralist rejecting paedophilia as an abhorrent idea: it is the counterfeit voice of a fluffy idiot severely infected by the silly 1960s maxim, “If it feels good, do it”. That was, lest we forget, the brainless outlook that led directly to Charles Manson, and the slaughter of Sharon Tate.
I’m sorry folks, but it won’t do. The denials ring hollow….as hollow as “former senior Tory Cabinet Minister” telling the cops last month that yes, he was at the Elm House parties, but no, he didn’t inhale.
What happened in the 1970s was that liberal nutters on the Left tried hard to legalise the bad, as a result of which the bad guys (often on the Right) found it incredibly easy to go on day trips to Amsterdam and f**k kids up the arse for fun. This in turn allowed Labour’s own local oddity-sheltering extremists to elect Councillors who proceeded to rape care home kids…alongside other more upmarket persons with nice shoes and in possession of the family name McAlpine doing the exact same thing.
Today, a child trafficking ring still exists – completely untrammeled by the Law – feeding on the bereft underclass infants of Plymouth. At least one right-wing Conservative is heavily involved in the practice: just as the Pakistani taxi drivers of Rotherham were in the supply of child flesh to their own kind.
All are protected by the political class, the National Security Act, and huge swathes of the Judiciary. All are equally guilty. And that’s why neither Party at Westminster has the slightest interest in bringing any of the villains to book.