How Did Liberty And The Guardian End Up In League With Pie?

[ToraToraTora]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378
OK, Liberty and the Guardian are the top line in lentil crunching but surely a paedophile group would repell even them. How did this repugnant organisation ever attain even this crumb of repectibility?

[emmie]

not everyone agreed with it, but it did exist for years, why wasn't it stopped in it's tracks, that will take some explaining, by those who were involved, and around at the time, i doubt they will, because this was supposedly a time of sexual liberation, and all that nonsense,

from the link

It's wrong to say that PIE was tolerated during the 1970s, says Times columnist Matthew Parris. "I remember a lot of indignation about it [PIE]. It was considered outrageous."

[Gromit]

Er, the Guardian reported a news story. Which is its purpose.

Is this a pathetic attempt to drag the Guardian into this story?

[emmie]

when you read the comments by it's founder they are outrageous, as are those of other members.

[emmie]

so you don't mind criticising the mail for daring to bring the matter up.

[mikey4444]

Not sure how the Guardian was "in league" with the PIE ?

"A Guardian article in 1977 noted with dismay how the group was growing"

So, reporting on the PIE was the same as being in league was ? Extraordinary ! By the same token then, the DM is in league with the PIE, because it has decided to rake all this up again, in its clumsy smear campaign against Harman and others.

Liberty must speak for itself, and has done so by condemning its predecessor, formally the NCCL. Harman has done herself no favours in her cack handed way in which she defended herself against the DM's smear campaign, but to try and implicate the Guardian is trying to play the same game as the DM.

[emmie]

the Guardian are not supporting this group, if you read it to the end

[Gromit]

The poster alleges the Guardian were in League with PIE. They were not. They reported on a vote at a conference. They did not take part in the vote, arrange it, endorse it or campaign for it. They merely reported the news at the time.

The Daily Mail reports are different. It is a politically motivated campaign to smear leading members of the Labour Party. It is not reporting the news, it is creating it from archived material from 40 years ago.

I am surprised that writs haven't been issued. Perhaps the central allegation that Harman supported PIE are untrue, but some of the facts of the case are unpalatable 40 years later.

[mikey4444]

Just watched the John Tusa Newsnight interview on the link that TTT has thoughtfully provided.

Its seems incredible that paedophiles would agree to be interviewed openly on the BBC's major investigative program, and its impossible to imagine it happening today. Attitudes to paedophilia have changed enormously in the last 34 years. Tusa was somewhat of an old-fashioned gentleman but it would interesting to see how Paxo would conduct the same interview if it were conducted today !

[Gromit]

// the Guardian are not supporting this group, if you read it to the end //

Do you not think desrcibing them as "in league with PIE" is therefore disingenuous and wrong?

[emmie]

why did Harman apologise, why did Chakrabati, who wasn't born when this group was in operation, its true that PIE was an affilicate of NCCL, which reading this today, seems incredible.

[emmie]

where did i say they were in league

[mikey4444]

Emmie...you are right in your post of 1820 but TTT seems to think otherwise. Perhaps he should have read his own link all the way through, like we have done. He should leave the smear campaigns to the DM, who are much better at it than he appears to be.

[Zeuhl]

/ in league with PIE/ ?????

A gross distortion verging on outright dishonesty if it wasn't so sad.

This sort of silliness and failed attempts at party political point scoring do nothing to combat paedophilia, on the contrary, it distracts from the real issues.

[Gromit]

Emmie,
You didn't. The question makes yhat assertion.

[emmie]

i read through the piece a number of times, its clear there is no affiliation with the Guardian and this vile organisation, but there is, for what it's worth, between PIE and the NCCL, i don't read the paper on line, have not caught up with any of their further reports on this case

[emmie]

that way you phrased it made me look as though i had said it.

[jno]

the men interviewed are dismayed that the Guardian doesn't support them. And that's somehow become "in league" with them? Strange.

[emmie]

i wonder how many knew about paedophilia back then, you might have had some salacious story in a tabloid about a vicar or schoolmaster caught with little boys, but i think most people wouldn't have had a clue what the word was or meant

[Zeuhl]

Back in the day, NCCL had hundreds of dodgy organisations sign up.

The NCCL view was that it was better to have an opportunity to air, learn about and face up to opinions (even those one might find repellent) rather than suppress and pretend they weren't there.

It's worth remembering that in the 1970s a large proportion of people wouldn't have known what paedophilia was.

It was a core principle of 'Civil Liberties' that even 'the repellent' should be heard if only so others could make their own decisions about them.

[emmie]

which is what i said. But this was a time of massive changes, in law, in regards to sexuality, and some got away with some truly appalling behaviour in the guise of the swinging sixties, seventies, sexual revolution, including not condemning outright those caught sexually abusing young children. some were caught and prosecuted, and served time in prison, but some didn't, and stayed in their jobs, or moved to another school, care home, institution.