• 🇬🇧󠁿 🇸🇪 🇿🇦 🇮🇪 🇬🇭 🇩🇪 🇪🇺
    European & African
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • EADD Moderators: Pissed_and_messed | Shinji Ikari

Official Paedo Discussion Megathread v2

Crack tits you ever seen Sherlock? with that benedick cummerbollocks or whatever his name is and martin freeman
 
Ahh its brilliant, didnt appeal to me tbh i thought it was gonna be shite but its so well written, worth a look without a doubt. on par with breaking bad etc
 
parttime crackhead said:
Crime is pretty good. I've got a copy here. It's kind of the follow-up to Filth, about Ray Lennox years after Filth.
Click to expand...

yeh, I must look at Lennox in Filth again. I ended up liking him in Crime, but Robertson was loathsome. The film of filth made Robertson a bit too likeable.

Eve, this thread popped up in response to all the Jimmy SAvile stuff . Of course this thread is no joking matter and it's not the slebs that ordinary folks need to worry about, but it's shocking how many people in respected positions of power and trust abuse their positions to abuse others. Dig around and you will see how prevalent and accepted it is in high society. Just be careful there are real sickos out there.
 
parttime crackhead said:
Crime is pretty good. I've got a copy here. It's kind of the follow-up to Filth, about Ray Lennox years after Filth.
Click to expand...

Excellent, getting that one on order.

Also weird to wake up to stuff on Radio 4 about Harriet Harman and noncery. No opinion either way as I was half asleep and didn't quite clock the full story, it was just weird.
 
Last edited:
Regarding Harriet Harman if you check page 34 of this thread I posted a link to The Telegraph which has an article explaining about her involvement with PIE.
I'm surprised that the press is only jumping on this now as all the info has been on countless blogs for ages now.
 
It's actually directly relevant to the tenuous links between the Paedophile Information Exchange and the National Council for Civil Liberties (of which Harman was once a member) which have already been mentioned in this thread.

Harriet Harman Condemns Paper's 'smear campaign'

The Daily Mail has questioned the politician, her MP husband Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt over their actions while officials at the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) in the 1970s and 1980s and its ties with the Paedophile Information Exchange - a group which spoke positively about adults who were attracted to children.

Although the body granted "affiliate" status to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) prior to her appointment, Ms Harman said the NCCL was "an organisation which anyone could apply to join and indeed any organisation could apply to be 'an affiliate' on payment of a fee".

There is no evidence to suggest that Ms Harman, Mr Dromey or Ms Hewitt personally supported the views of PIE.

Ms Harman told BBC Two's Newsnight. "It is not the case that my work, when I was at NCCL, was influenced by PIE, was apologising for paedophilia or colluding with paedophilia. That is an unfair inference and a smear.

"My work has always been, when I was at NCCL and when I have been in politics and ministerial office, to protect children, especially from child abuse."
Click to expand...

The Daily Mail distorting the facts beyond belief and carrying out a smear campaign against a former Labour MP?

Surely not! :D

The 'paedo' allegations (vague as they are) are pretty much a new low in British journalism, however.
 
She was a bit more involved than she is making out.
Look into the story a bit more and see what she was signing her name to.
I will try to find some links later on.
No excuses can be made for allowing an organisation such as PIE to be affiliated no matter what she says. She wouldn't say sorry for it on last nights Newsnight.
 
Last edited:
maxalfie said:
She was a bit more involved than she is making out.
Look into the story a bit more and see what she was signing her name to.
I will try to find some links later on.
No excuses can be made for allowing an organisation such as PIE to be affiliated no matter what she says. She wouldn't say sorry for it on last nights Newsnight.
Click to expand...

Is this the stuff you're talking about, Max?

In 1976, the NCCL in a submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee of the British Parliament argued that "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage".[12] Organisations such as Paedophile Information Exchange (P.I.E.), a pro-paedophile activist group, and Paedophile Action for Liberation became affiliated to the pressure group.
Click to expand...
 
maxalfie said:
Regarding Harriet Harman if you check page 34 of this thread I posted a link to The Telegraph which has an article explaining about her involvement with PIE.
I'm surprised that the press is only jumping on this now as all the info has been on countless blogs for ages now.
Click to expand...

it's mad. It's just ho the press works. One day the heroin drought of winter 2010 will make it to national news. But yeh, how log did it take Saviles noncery to make it to the news? 30 years.
 
maxalfie said:
No excuses can be made for allowing an organisation such as PIE to be affiliated no matter what she says. She wouldn't say sorry for it on last nights Newsnight.
Click to expand...

If she says sorry then she concedes that she somehow actively endorsed PIE's membership, when there's no evidence that she ever did.

It's the flimsiest, most cynical smear I've seen in a while, and were it not for the spicy, emotive paedo factor it'd be a non-story.
 
It IS a smear campaign, because regardless of the fact that the Telegraph broke the 'story' two years ago (that in itself should give you an idea of its magnitude), nobody has found any evidence to suggest that Harman endorsed, promoted or encouraged the activities of PIE.

In addition to this, PIE itself was careful to publicly distance itself from non-consensual activities between an adult and a child. Yes, the very concept of 'consensual' activity between an adult and a child is bizarre to most right-thinking people, but it wasn't like they were openly advocating the rape of babies. This in itself would make it extremely difficult for a civil liberties organisation to immediately reject their membership.

Neither of the links you've posted (both opinion pieces, may I add) offer evidence to suggest this is anything other than much ado about nothing.
 
@BBCr4today : Former PIE chairman
Tom O’Carroll: "In my view [the NCCL]
didn't do much to oppose PIE's
presence" in the 1970s
I was 9 years old in 1980 and I knew who PIE were as they were on the news a lot and the Sunday papers at the time.
Why would she see fit to take money from them and indeed have anything to do with such an organisation?
 
As she's already stated, any organisation could join. PIE was one of a number of equally 'questionable' (depending on your views) groups which successfully applied for membership.

Tom O'Carroll expressing his opinion again doesn't change the fact that there isn't any actual evidence to suggest that she ever outright encouraged or even condoned PIE's activities.
 
maxalfie said:
Doesn't accepting a fee from such an organisation appear that you agree with what they have to say?
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. Especially if it's a civil liberties organisation we're speaking of.

I'll reiterate - whilst PIE was affiliated to the NCCL, it actively promoted consensual relations between adults and children, whether you agree there's such a thing or not.

They argued against the censorship of child pornography unless it could be proved that abuse and coercion were involved in its production.

It was only the staunch anti-censorship ethos of the NCCL which prevented it immediately rejecting PIE's membership, and it was the anti-censorship angle which they used to gain a foothold in the organisation. They were expelled altogether by 1983.

And please, no more links from 'UK Paedos Exposed'... 8(

It does little to suggest anything other than the fact that members of militant paedophile groups are paedophiles. Doesn't offer any fresh evidence of Harman's involvement, does it?

This is why smear campaigns are effective, especially when they come with an emotive twist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top