New Year Honours Dec 2020

[mikeymo]

I doubt there was at many other places back then.

Possibly.

My mother was a field child care social worker at that time. I don't remember her expressing any concerns about particular organisations or areas of work. But of course she didn't discuss cases in any detail with me.

It sounds as though you have some knowledge or experience of the subject, perhaps?

Only to the extent my wife was county prosecutor in the eighties and handled quite a few child abuse, sexual assault and incest cases. Later on she ended up defending the same in private practice before becoming a specialist child care lawyer. So yes she has a fair bit of knowledge and experience of these matters and I've learnt a bit about it from her.

Thanks, that's very useful insight.

[Ben@Forest]

I was only making the point that back then they were not considered as unacceptable as now.

But that complicates the issue again... who considered the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange as acceptable then? Anyone in public life?

The National Council for Civil Liberties supported the Paedophile Information Exchange. Another Labour MP who was involved with the NCCL was Patricia Hewitt who said she took responsibility for mistakes made by the National Council for Civil Liberties in the 1970s when she was its general secretary. I also remember her saying on radio it was a reason she'd not ever consider running for the Labour leadership, it would always be seen as too grave an error (those last words are mine but paraphrased that's what she said). The NCCL is now of course 'Liberty'.

[Oldjohnw]

My recollection is that the PIE tried, with some success, to blur it's real intention with defending children having secual rights and also gay people. This aspect was what NCCL supported and permitted PIE as an affiliate.

Subsequently, of course, Liberty has totally rejected it's earlier policy. Under Shami Shakrabarti it became a body of considerable influence and respectability. A body such as Liberty will always, of course, take up some cases which are distasteful to others.whilst not actually supporting the cause itself: homosexually itself, various religious causes, rights of prisoners etc.

The above is a recollection: I have looked nothing up and my recollection might be faulty. I hope any inaccuracies do not not cause me to be accused of being a liar.

[Tangled Metal]

Thank you.

The other one you might have been remembering was Hewitt. Dromey was also accused.

There was no intention to imply Harmon supported them.

Thank you for saying that so clearly.

I was only making the point that back then they were not considered as unacceptable as now.

But that complicates the issue again... who considered the views of the Paedophile Information Exchange as acceptable then? Anyone in public life?

Thanks

Jonathan

Anyone standing and speaking at an event at which they also stood has some complicity in my book. If anything deserves cancel culture that body surely deserves it. Afterall the argument had been joined and won because even back then there were laws against what they wanted. However acceptance of their right to exist as an organization is surely against our modern history.

From the earliest employment laws limiting ages kids can work from / their exploitation right through to age of consent legislation. Debate had, debate won. Even back then. It's just that nobody listened to kids. Always adults believed over kids. Patterns of behaviours not used and it seems to me that each case was considered separately not together to build a wider picture.

In my school cases I mentioned up thread, each was dealt with on their own. Never looking at decade long pattern of history. I meant dealt with as in shut the parents up with threats.

That was the climate and I do consider teachers at fault here as well as head teachers, LEA and the whole culture of primary education. Indeed the culture of the era.

[Ben@Forest]

Subsequently, of course, Liberty has totally rejected it's earlier policy. Under Shami Shakrabarti it became a body of considerable influence and respectability. A body such as Liberty will always, of course, take up some cases which are distasteful to others.whilst not actually supporting the cause itself: homosexually itself, various religious causes, rights of prisoners etc.

I wasn't trying to infer that Liberty is some kind of closet paedophile organisation, simply that the NCCL/Liberty had/have a significant position in public life, it wasn't some flash in the pan that burned briefly and disappeared. (Lots of justifications going on!).

[Oldjohnw]

Subsequently, of course, Liberty has totally rejected it's earlier policy. Under Shami Shakrabarti it became a body of considerable influence and respectability. A body such as Liberty will always, of course, take up some cases which are distasteful to others.whilst not actually supporting the cause itself: homosexually itself, various religious causes, rights of prisoners etc.

I wasn't trying to infer that Liberty is some kind of closet paedophile organisation, simply that the NCCL/Liberty had/have a significant position in public life, it wasn't some flash in the pan that burned briefly and disappeared. (Lots of justifications going on!).

And I wasn't disagreeing! Until the organisation became Liberty I think it tended to dig itself further in. Shami was untainted so was able to get to grips properly.