So, the sensational allegations of brutal, even murderous “V.I.P. paedophilia” that were hailed as “credible and true” by a top cop in Operation Midland, which was set up to investigate them, have now tacitly been admitted as the ravings of a fantasist by the toppest cop of the lot, Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, head of the London Metropolitan Police, writing in the Guardian.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Hogan-Howe admitted that officers had been “carried away” by the prevailing dogma that complainants (or “victims” as they are so often prematurely called) must be believed. Investigating a crime properly required officers to “keep an open mind”, he said. As Luke Gittos, Law Editor of Spiked, puts it in an article that explores the wider institutional ramifications, “The announcement that the police will actually start investigating crimes, rather than just believing in them, reveals the sorry state of policing around allegations of sexual abuse.”
And what beliefs! What incredible credulity! The madness of Detective Superintendent Kenny McDonald’s assertion in December 2014 that wild, bizarre allegations by a certain “Nick” were “credible and true” would have been obvious from the start to anyone less in thrall to the febrile witch-hunting spirit of our times.
This is not hindsight on my part. Just a few weeks later, in January 2015, Heretic TOC began to call the craziness for what it was, in the first of several articles based on what I just happened to know personally about the allegations. So, remember, you heard it here first! In The pencil is mightier than the sword, and then Exposé outfit murders its own credibility a couple of months later, this blog focused on allegations made by “Darren”, whose yarns, in common with “Nick’s”, were being promoted by sensationalist news agency Exaro News. So hand-in-glove was this relationship that Exaro is said to have been present when these allegators gave their police interviews.
“Darren’s” attack was on the late Peter Righton, who had served with me as a committee member in the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Peter had been a senior social worker and I knew him as a very decent, kind and gentle soul. In “Darren’s” preposterous version, though, he had been a ruthless killer who had torn a man’s body apart by tying him between two vehicles which were then slowly reversed away from each other. He had even forced the victim to dig his own grave beforehand! Needless to say, this wild yarn has not been substantiated.
Scotland Yard launched Operation Midland in November 2014 after hearing claims made by “Darren’s” stablemate “Nick”, an alleged victim of child abuse. I use both names but the lurid, depraved brutality depicted is so similar in the telling they could easily have been just one person. “Nick” claimed three boys were murdered by paedophiles, including senior politicians, in Westminster in the 1970s and 1980s. Detectives, according to the Daily Mail recently, now regard him as a “Walter Mitty” fantasist.
They were not saying that last summer, when the furthest, wildest reaches of “Nick’s” fertile imagination were being fed to the slavering media. Now sexual abuse allegations were being made about the long dead Sir Edward Heath, Tory British prime minister from 1970 to 1974. Following this, the Sunday Mirror ran a story reporting on another missing dossier on V.I.P. “child sex abuse” to compete with the already fabled one supposedly compiled by the late Geoffrey Dickens MP. Attributed to Barbara Castle, a leading Labour cabinet minister in the 1970s, this new treasure trove of dirty deeds dug out of the dusty archives included the following gem. Reporter Don Hale wrote:
“We can…reveal that Heath, under investigation by seven police forces over child abuse claims, was present at more than half a dozen Westminster meetings of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.”
The absurdity of this claim was the subject of my blog Prime Minister was my buddy – NOT! in September. The whole ridiculous edifice began to unravel soon after this, not least when it was exposed that Tom Watson, the Labour MP who had been the prime myth peddler behind the whole theme of a Westminster V.I.P. paedophile ring cover-up – a conspiracy theory conveniently targeting the rival Conservative Party – had used the fact, as the Daily Mail put it, “that an innocent Tory MP had a paedophile relative to bolster his claims”. The Tory MP was John Whittingdale, now a leading government figure as Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport; his relative was Charles Napier, another former PIE committee member and friend of mine, currently in prison for what I believe to be an unjustly lengthy 13-year sentence, as I explained in Hi, this is Charles. I’ve been a naughty boy…
It has been estimated that the ill-fated Operation Midland has cost £1.8 million and taken up in excess of 80,000 hours of police time, but no charges have been brought as a result and there is speculation that the investigation will be formally wound up later this month. Worst of all, during this time the reputations of those baselessly accused, notably former MP Harvey Proctor, Field Marshall Lord Bramall – an elderly war hero and former Chief of the Defence Staff – and the recently deceased former Home Secretary Lord Brittan, were needlessly and devastatingly trashed in public. Hogan-Howe has announced that there will be an independent investigation to look into ways in which the police could have handled things better.
Blogger Anna Raccoon, known offline as retired lawyer Susanne Cameron-Blackie, sees an ulterior motive in setting up this new inquiry, as it follows hard on the heels of a report covering similar ground last year by Dame Elish Angiolini. Ms Raccoon says the real reason Hogan-Howe may want a further inquiry is perhaps that “he would really rather you didn’t read this recent and comprehensive review of Metropolitan Police Policy and behaviour towards sexual offending – a review which reveals more than it conceals for once.” Ms Raccoon is absolutely right that the 141-page Angiolini report is of great importance, as will be clear to anyone reading her blog The Presumption of Innocence yesterday, which I highly recommend, not least because it explores the origins of the police “always believe the victims” policy. There is also a lot of interesting material on the competing statistics of false allegations. She presents estimates for false allegations of rape ranging from 2% to 30%, showing why there is a basis for such wide variation, depending on who is doing the counting and what is counted. Fascinating, and very revealing.
However, the Angiolini report was not comprehensive: it focused on rape reporting and could not possibly have had anything definitive to say about Operation Midland, which was still in its early months when Dame Elish’s report appeared last April.
I was struck by the name of the man Hogan-Howe appointed to undertake this additional task: Sir Richard Henriques, a senior lawyer. It rang a bell and then I remembered why: I had appeared before him when he was on the bench in an appeal hearing of mine before the Royal Courts of Justice in 2003. He had also been in charge of the independent inquiry relating to the late Lord Janner, producing a report that came out just last month. He ruled that the former Labour MP should have been prosecuted as long ago as 1991. Instead, he was charged much more recently, by which time he had Alzheimer’s and was deemed not fit to stand trial. He died in December, aged 87.
As it happens, Lord Janner had crossed my path too, although conspiracy theorists should not get too excited over what was a very fleeting connection. He had been plain Greville Janner then, back in the early 1970s, when he was the MP for Leicester West and I was a very inexperienced and somewhat anxious young reporter with the Leicester Mercury. He was a lively and popular MP in those days, with a reputation for being a tireless constituency worker. That was the image at least: his name seemed to be constantly in our paper for some worthy activity or another.
And it was in just such a context that I interviewed him once, on an immense stretch of derelict urban wasteland, strewn with discarded old bike frames and the like. I remember having to all but trot after him as he strode quickly over this “blasted heath”, regaling me at great speed and with infectious enthusiasm with his vision for how the land should be developed for the public good. Keen to make an accurate record, I found myself scribbling into my note book as fast as I could, but soon fell alarmingly short of being able to keep up. He never complained about my eventual report, though, so either I got it roughly right or he was just happy to get yet more good publicity.
He would definitely not have found the publicity Henriques gave him so congenial. Sir Richard was properly objective in tone, referring to “complainants” against Janner rather than “victims”, and his 46-page report is thorough, carefully detailing the nature of the complaints and what was done about them – or rather not done – by the authorities. For those very reasons, the apparent thoroughness and objectivity, the picture painted is damning.
It also surprised me, when I read it. I had somewhat assumed Janner’s name had been blackened baselessly, as with the ridiculous tall stories from “Darren” and “Nick”. But not so. The allegations against Janner were not necessarily true but those by one complainant, at least, were definitely substantial. To my mind they show that Janner was quite obviously a boy lover. Whether he actually did anything is another matter but the circumstantial evidence suggests he probably did.
Suspicion first fell on Janner in 1990, when it emerged ahead of the trial of Leicester children’s homes manager Frank Beck the following year on child sexual abuse charges, that Janner knew Beck and had a friendly relationship with a boy at one of the homes in question, starting when the boy was 13. Affectionate letters from Janner to the boy were found; there was evidence he had given the youngster expensive gifts and stayed with him on many occasions in hotel rooms around the country.
There was nothing, though, to suggest that any sex was non-consensual. There was an active relationship for a couple of years and long after that the boy, now a man in his late twenties, invited Janner to his wedding. Janner appears to have been a nice enough guy, who was just unfortunate in finding himself tangled up with Beck, who was possibly – though he too may have had a bad press – a rather nastier piece of work.
As for Sir Richard Henriques, he had risen to prominence as the lead prosecutor against the two boys who murdered the toddler James Bulger, and then later made the case against serial killer doctor Harold Shipman. Heavy stuff.
I had no idea of this weighty background when I encountered him in his role as an appeal court judge. On that occasion he was sitting with Lord Justice Scott Baker, presiding, and His Honour Judge Crowther QC, who delivered the judgment. I don’t recall Sir Richard saying a single word during the entire hearing. The judgement went against me, but in the absence of knowing what Henriques may have said to his fellow judges in their discussion of the case, I can have no complaint against him personally. I do have a story to tell about that hearing, though, but it looks as though it must wait until another time.
ONE SWALLOW DOESN’T MAKE A SUMMER
The good news that the Met chief has seen sense and retreated under pressure from the “believe the victims” creed does not mean anti-paedo hysteria has peaked out in Britain, sadly. The ink was barely dry on his Guardian article before other leading figures in the abuse industry were piling in to disown Hogan-Howe’s reassertion of a more traditional approach to the assessment of allegations.
One swallow, clearly, does not a summer make. Luke Gittos, in the article linked from my main blog above, explores this theme with reference to other institutions beyond the police wherein justice is being undermined by dogma. Tim Black, in another Spiked article attempts to identify the underlying force giving the hysteria its continuing energy.
Meanwhile, the hydra-headed moral panic monster sprouts another gargoyle: Paedophiles use secret Facebook groups to swap images. Enjoy!
PEER-TO-PEER CONNECTION
Two of my featured characters today, Lord Bramall and Lord Janner, once had an unusual peer-to-peer connection: Bramall “connected” with his fellow peer of the realm Janner by hitting him, in a room just off the House of Lords chamber! No, the pair were not love rivals for a boy, or at least that is not the official reason for the violent incident, which is said to have arisen during a heated quarrel about the Middle East. Bramall was in his early eighties at the time, Janner in his late seventies. The younger man later accepted an apology from the old (but not entirely retired!) warrior.
[…] and a half long years have passed since February 2016 when Heretic TOC published a blog called V.I.P. fiasco: you heard it here first, which began […]
[…] expensive in another way. The inquiry’s work, like the black farce recently seen in the disastrous police investigations of alleged VIP paedophilia, is likely to come at the expense of innocent people. It is bad enough […]
[…] up is a probe focusing on the late Greville Janner, who featured in Heretic TOC’s V.I.P. fiasco: you heard it here first. The Guardian piece says solicitor Liz Dux, at Slater and Gordon Lawyers, will be representing […]
Fascist phoney Anglophone 80% Right wing media-misinformed Learned Lefty Ken.
Is just playing safe, not wanting to be seen as ‘cruel to kids’ by backing the most demonized and misrepresented sexual minority (or majority?) of the past 40 years. Of which (like the dumbed down shallow ignorant mainstream mind raped masses) he knows less than squat !
Perhaps like Tom unfairly asked to comment in depth on perceived wholesale cruelty in the greyhound racing industry where some dogs are destroyed after age four.
To venture a tad, or more, further where even Star Trek didn’t go. A case could be made that the Fascist phoney Anglophone 80% right wing bent media is the root cause of today’s post-WW2 three biggest negative issues.
1: The 1950s ongoing mid East/World crisis, terrorists, freedom fighters, massed migrants, et al.
2: The 19Hateys ongoing Fraud Market, leading inevitably to the ’08 ongoing World financial crisis Wall St/London City criminal ‘Banksters’, et al.
3: The 19Hateys ongoing, all fake – World Pedo Panic.
Paraphrase Capn Kirk’s learned Vulcan Mr Spock (not kid expert Doc Spock), “Strictly logical !”
I’m wondering what these foolish fanatics are going to say about it all, now…
…Likely nothing…they’ll just quietly slink away from it all, and pretend it never happened.
And then they will unhesitatingly jump on the bandwagon with the next round of outrageous claims and media-saturated investigations into whatever new manifestation of the “pedophile panic” rears its sensationalistic, fraudulent head in the future. No questions asked, just pure hysterical accusations and emotionally-driven beliefs that demand full complicity from everyone else in the political or media sphere who wants and needs the public brownie points that come with riding the bandwagon. They are well aware that the virulent emotional nature of this hysteria and the popular psychological and political need to believe will garner them full public forgiveness no matter how many innocent lives are destroyed or how many times they are shown to be a bunch of fools for becoming zealous passengers on these sensation-mongering band wagons.
My bad, this was supposed to be a response to Steve’s post just below.
One problem with the WordPress Dashboard is that the moderator doesn’t see where the post will be located, otherwise I hope I would have spotted the error.
This tall tale was the launch pad of the Anonymous project “OpDeathEaters”.
https://ourlovefrontier.wordpress.com/2014/12/17/anonymous-hate-propaganda-opdeatheaters/
From that post, you can follow the link to their video…which spells out the early accusations of this case…and till this day, in the comments section…there’s not a doubting dissent in sight…The feeble minds of these fanatics, decided the whole thing was true, and they were going to treat it [and the people targeted] as though it were…in their own, malicious style.
While I refrained from crawling out very far on a limb, regarding the wider story…I did chew that piece of propaganda up, and spit it out.
I’m wondering what these foolish fanatics are going to say about it all, now…
…Likely nothing…they’ll just quietly slink away from it all, and pretend it never happened.
But we will all know the truth…that these same fools of Anonymous, who were even attacking you, Tom…lacked the sense and experience that so many of us here have…and they couldn’t even tell when they were almost certainly being fed a buffet of B.S.
…I guess they’re not accustomed to the essence of such experiences, like we are.
You’ve got to know when to hold back…and then you’ve got to know when to call B.S.
Anonymous is nowhere near as smart and clever, as they think themselves to be.
I’m glad this bluster is finally collapsing…It never rang true, to my intuition.
Well said, Steve. Just seen your blog and the Anonymous vid. Good job – your blog, of course, not the vid!
Studies on rates of false rape allegation generally come up with results somewhere in the 2-11% range. The biggest I have seen settled at around 8%. Higher estimates have been given but, as is acknowledged in the material Anna Raccoon uses in her blog post, they are definite outliers.
Deciding when an allegation is false is, as A.R. notes, difficult. Obviously, declaring all allegations false if the complainant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged rape or shows no signs of physical injury is going to produce a big overestimate of false allegations. But, equally obviously, requiring evidence that an allegation is malicious before it can be classified as false is going to produce an underestimate.
Elsewhere in that very interesting post we read that some people don’t report because they thought the incident was too trivial to merit reporting. That could mean a lot of things, from “I found it deeply upsetting but I know, or fear, it wouldn’t be taken seriously” to “Report that? Don’t be silly, I just laughed it off and carried on with my day”. I wonder what the ratio is of the former to the latter. We don’t want to return to the bad old days when women and girls and, in some contexts, schoolboys were expected just to put up with hands up skirts or down shorts, but we can probably all agree that a healthy sense of proportion seems in some cases to have been eroded or gone missing entirely. The question is, how do we as a society help women and children, and men, to have a strong sense of their own sexual agency and equal entitlement to sexual satisfaction, while also maintaining that sense of proportion about the odd wandering hand?
On an entirely different note, some food for thought here: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/feb/16/children-in-england-rank-near-bottom-in-international-happiness-table and here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/17/happiness-survey-children-england-90-per-cent-happy-bullying-friends-family
Meanwhile, this is going on: http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/feb/17/adam-johnson-trial-girl-told-friend-footballer-offered-meet-money I’ve dug up a few blog, etc., comments by women on this and the Bowie story:
“I had sex with a famous person when I was underage. Do I feel like a victim? No. I enjoyed it. I’m mid-50s now, and don’t look back on it with regret.”
“I know many of my friends lost their virginity under the age of 16. It was seen as the norm when I was a teenager. I think attitudes have changed enormously over the last 40 years and what is seen as unacceptable now just wasn’t then. I find it hard to be shocked that a girl lost her virginity at 15, even to a 26-year-old.”
“I grew up in the 80s, mostly, and started going to gigs, clubs and pubs etc. at 12. There were a few of us: one girl of around my age, I remember in particular, was particularly proud of her ability to get in the pants of almost any visiting lead singer. She looked older than her years, and quite possibly was exaggerating, but we didn’t view it as abuse at the time. I remember thinking she was being a bit sad [NB: in this context, in the UK, ‘sad’ means roughly ‘loser-like, pathetic’], but it was a boring town with not much going on — and I don’t think anyone expected us to make anything of ourselves one day, so it seemed to matter less I suppose…”
I’m not convinced either that there is necessarily much of an equivalence between false accusations of adult-on-adult rape and false accusations of child sexual abuse. In this interesting article https://www.ipce.info/library_2/files/boys_west.htm we read that “The reaction of a boy of 11, obliged to share a bed with a friend’s father, who fondled him during the night, was typical: ‘I mean it was a nuisance that I was being kept awake. Other than that it was slightly embarrassing.’ ” But if, as an adult, he had decided for whatever reason to report it, nobody would have said to him, “Why did you get into bed with a man in the first place? You must have known what was going to happen.” Nobody would have said, “If it took you so long to report this, clearly you weren’t that upset by it” — or if they did, he’d have been able to say that he was only a child at the time, trusted adults, felt bad about it but didn’t know it was wrong, etc. He wouldn’t have grown up in a culture that says 11-year-old boys should be trying hard to make themselves desirable to men, that sex between men and 11-year-old boys is generally a good and happy thing, that sometimes nice men are so overcome by their sexual urges that they can’t resist putting a hand into an 11-year-old boy’s underwear, and we should be understanding about that. On the contrary, he would have grown up being told from every direction that what happened to him was almost a fate worse than death, and that he *should* be traumatised, dammit.
What about young teen girls with young adult men? That’s a situation that more closely approximates the normal, desired setup. I once read a comment that went something like this: “I had a sexual relationship with my newly-qualified teacher, age 22, when I was 14. It was only many years later, when my own daughter turned 13, that I realised just what he had done and how wrong it was, and what he was. I found out he had later made another underage girl pupil pregnant, and had served a prison term for it.” There are indeed some rape narratives that go a lot like that: “I didn’t realise how wrong it was till much later, then I found out he had raped someone else and that decided me to report…”
A your a walking encyclopaedia-) ” what happened to him was almost a fate worse than death, and that he *should* be traumatised, dammit”
That may explain why so many comments on forums are full of vitriol, with threats of death that would make ISIS killings seem mild with comparison, even such comments targeted at Tom, who has served his time. I read somewhere that his book influenced his sentence in the 1980s, that’s nothing short of thoughtcrime!
There was an interesting documentary on BBC4 ‘The brain’ by David Eagleman 5/6 In this part they covered how genocide happens, when people reduce their brain activity enough to dehumanise individuals on a massive scale — In-group out-group — It delves deeper than smoke and mirrors ideology…I recommend it.
>…Tom, who has served his time. I read somewhere that his book influenced his sentence in the 1980s
My activism and writing definitely resulted in an excessive sentence when I was given nine months for importing three images of naked kids in 2002. My authority for this is the Court of Appeal, who said the photos were of a kind that might appear quite innocently in a family album. The appeal judges said I should not have been given a prison sentence at all. They expressly said that the trial judge appeared to have been unduly influenced by my activism and writing.
The trial judge in my 1981 case was also influenced in a similarly improper way, I believe, but in that case I have nothing to prove it.
I’m disappointed in Red Ken. But who knows what people in the public eye are really thinking nowadays?
Others, who in the past have made sympathetic statements (such as Stephen Fry and Peter Tatchell), are now ‘toeing the line’ – but one has to wonder how sincere they are. After all, I wonder how many readers of Tom’s blog have to toe that same line in their day-to-day lives whilst inwardly giving the finger to the impression they are obliged to give.
Take Daniel Cohn-Bendit:
In his book ‘Le Grand Bazar’ (published in 1975), described himself as engaging in sexual activities with very young children at the kindergarten, and in 1978 described being seduced by a 6-year-old girl as one of the most beautiful experiences he had ever had.
«Vous savez que la sexualité d’un gosse, c’est absolument fantastique. […] Quand une petite fille, de 5 ans, commence à vous déshabiller c’est fantastique ! C’est fantastique parce que c’est un jeu absolument érotico-maniaque!»
Then in 2001, under pressure, he claimed that he invented these stories for purposes of “verbal provocation”, and admitted that what he wrote was “unacceptable nowadays”.
I suspect that he’s equivocating – note how that ‘nowadays’ makes the ‘unacceptability’ of what he said contingent on the current zeitgeist – his ‘apology’ could be taken less as a criticism of his original child-sexuality-friendly statements and more of a criticism of ‘nowadays’ .
That Cohn-Bendit, a thinker who seems otherwise pretty much fearless and combative to a fault, should have to eat both humble pie and his words shows how little wiggle-room there is on this matter for those in the public eye.
Not that there seems to be much equivocation in Ken Livingstone’s statements. But his thinking really is all over the place – a jigsaw of ill-fitting bile-filled thought-bites – that only manage to communicate the tabloid level of his knowledge of the issues, and his incoherent rage.
I wonder if Red Ken is aware that the Communist Party of Great Britain in 2010 (and maybe even today) advocated the abolition of the age of consent?
https://web.archive.org/web/20110608060939/http://www.cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1002575
i had heard the Communist party wanted to ditch the AOC..its positively surprising they continued to hold that position as late as 2010
“Abolish age-of-consent laws. We recognise the right of individuals to enter into the sexual relations they choose provided this does not conflict with the rights of others. Alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse.
The extensive provision of education and counselling facilities on all sexual matters, free from moralistic judgement, is an essential prerequisite to enable youth to develop themselves in all areas of sexuality and reproduction”…All good stuff, but as a property owner, my own innate egocentricity may kick in
Being in France, I hear often about and from Daniel Cohn-Bendit. He has lost since long any trace of the radicalism he could have in the sixties and seventies, and has become a respectable Green European MP.
A few years ago, I heard him say loudly “La pédophilie est un crime!”, and he seemed to nearly believe his own words.
Note that the CPGB whose program you link to is not the same as the CPB that publishes the “Morning Star”, with its repeated articles on paedo VIP conspiracy and the “red” Ken’s hate speech.
Attn. Stephen: beware the words “leftist”, “feminist”, “radical”, “trot”, etc., most are counterfeit, there is no “Apellation d’Origine Contrôlée” as we say for French wines.
>” He has lost since long any trace of the radicalism he could have in the sixties and seventies, and has become a respectable Green European MP.”
I’d say that, despite its tree-hugging, yoghurt-weaving, sandal-wearing image, there is no more radical vision of society than the deep-green ideal! 😉
On a related matter – whilst writing the yesterday’s comment I came across this book “L’enfant interdit : Comment la pédophilie est devenue scandaleuse” by Pierre Verdranger published in 2013.
Its description is very interesting (apologies to non-francophone readers – I’m in a bit of a rush as I type this and haven’t got time right now to translate it – I’ll do so later if anyone requests a translation…):
“Qui se souvient que la pédophilie a été considérée comme une cause « juste » voici seulement une trentaine d’années ? Au nom de la libération des mœurs, de grands intellectuels, des éditeurs, des journaux renommés, à gauche, mais aussi à droite, des hétérosexuels comme des homosexuels, l’ont défendue avec passion. Certes, une telle position faisait débat : ce livre nous replonge dans les controverses de l’époque et passe à la loupe les arguments des différents protagonistes.
Aujourd’hui, la pédophilie est quasi unanimement considérée comme une des pires choses qu’on puisse imaginer. Et celle-ci fait d’autant plus peur qu’elle est toujours plus envahissante : il n’est presque plus possible de consulter un média sans qu’il en soit question. Elle a colonisé aussi bien l’espace public que notre propre intériorité.
Pourtant, les sciences sociales sont restées inexplicablement muettes sur ce problème alors même que se posent de nombreuses questions : comment certaines élites ont-elles tenté de légitimer la pédophilie dans les années 1970-80 ? Comment, en l’espace de quelques années, le pédophile est-il devenu un danger pour la société ? Pourquoi ce retournement a-t-il été aussi rapide que radical ? Ce sont ces énigmes, et quelques autres, que cet ouvrage tente de résoudre.”
I was wondering if you, Christian, or any other francophone reader, has read or heard of this book? If it’s interesting or any good?
Google translate is a useful tool, but this flailing piece of Francophone failure can’t even trace the well known source of 19Hateys-ongoing Pedo Panix?
As ever, the KidSeX craZed Fascist Phoney Fucking Anglophone – Q.E.D.
Google Latin fer ‘Q.E.D.’
“Qui se souvient que la pédophilie a été considérée comme une cause ….
“Who remembers that pedophilia was considered a cause” just “here only thirty years? In the name of sexual liberation, great intellectuals, publishers, renowned newspapers left but also the right, heterosexual as homosexual, have defended with passion. Certainly, such a position was debate: this book takes us back to the controversies of the time and takes a look at the arguments of the various protagonists.
Today, pedophilia is almost unanimously considered one of the worst things imaginable. And it is all the more scared she is always more pervasive: it is hardly possible to consult media without it Matter. It has colonized the public space as well as our own interiority.
Yet the social sciences have remained silent on this even inexplicably problem posed many questions: how certain elites have they attempted to legitimize pedophilia in the years 1970-80? How, in the space of a few years, it is the pedophile become a danger to society? Why this reversal has there been as rapid as radical? It is these riddles, and others, that this book is trying to solve. “
That’s a real jaw-dropper about the Communist Party of Great Britain. Abolition of the AOC is listed among their immediate demands, even. They apparently advocate “alternative legislation to protect children from sexual abuse.” I wonder if they have any concrete suggestion as to what this would look like? It might even be worth contacting them to ask.
Kamil Beylant ?@Securityconcern
@tom_watson The fact is, O’Carroll got it right on ‘Nick’ vs. Bramall, etc., and you were out to lunch. https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/02/15/v-i-p-fiasco-you-heard-it-here-first/ … Hire him.
Cheers Kamil!
They’re talking about you again:http://www.lbc.co.uk/paedophile-campaigner-suspended-by-labour-125147
And now one day later the Daily Telegraph reports Tom O’Carroll has been suspended from the Labour Pary! Have they bothered to notify you yet Tom? And if so, have they givern any reason?
All hell breaking lose, Andrew. No direct contact from Party yet.
I wonder if the “reason” Tom was booted by the Labour Party is nothing more than petty backlash ire over the fact that he was recently proven right regarding his statements and speculations about the fiasco with fantasists influencing the London MP to waste 80,000 hours of investigation and countless taxpayer money chasing a delusion. It could simply be a form of retroactive damage control for his time with PIE, as claimed by the quotes in that article, but I think the timing of the whole thing makes me suspicious. It was reported right after Tom made his most recent post on this blog. Obviously the situation with the MP breaking the news is going to unleash a “backlash mania” in the U.K. news in general, and Tom is always a popular target when that happens. That’s the price he has always been willing to pay for never giving up with speaking a truth to a society that doesn’t want to hear it. Kicking him out of the Labour Party for that would be a predictable equivalent of a neighbor telling him, “Get out of my house, someone with your views is no longer welcome at our poker games!” and then silently ruminating, “That’ll teach him for embarrassing me by being right!”
Very true that the anti-pedo hysteria hasn’t reached its peak: Look at this article, Red Ken would incarcerate ‘paedophiles’ permanently:http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-5a52-Red-Ken-Lock-paedophiles-up-for-life#.VsI7kPmLSUl
Blimey, I hadn’t realised what a Neanderthal he was on this! Strange, because I seem to remember that back around the time when he was GLC leader, he said something about wanting to hear all voices in the community including those of paedophiles. Does anyone else remember this?
I too was shocked. He always seemed quite libertarian and inclusive. I hope someone can dig out the quote you are talking about.
I see you get a mention today Tom here: https://twitter.com/tom_watson/status/699539669206364160
Actually, now I think about it, it was probably either in Magpie or Minor Problems in the early or mid eighties.
It was said to have been at a meeting of Harrow Gay Unity, around 1982, but I never found a written report of it.
Wikiquote has this:
“Everyone is bisexual. Almost everyone has the sexual potential for anything.” — Speech to Harrow Gay Unity Group (18 August 1981)
This is repeated in the Wikipedia article about Livingstone’s Greater London Council leadership. Sources are given as:
Carvel, John (1984). Citizen Ken. London: Chatto & Windus. ISBN 978-0701139292.
Hosken, Andrew (2008). Ken: The Ups and Downs of Ken Livingstone. Arcadia Books. ISBN 978-1-905147-72-4.
This puts him in Harrow for a definite event at a definite time, which takes us further than Anon’s very helpful recollection. As he was speaking to a gay group, the quote “A” gives would seem to be part of a speech suggesting it’s OK to be gay, but of course it would be pushing it a bit to claim from this quote that he was indicating support for anything for which “almost everyone has the sexual potential”.
So the search for the “P” word in his speech continues.
I doubt if Harrow Gay Unity Group still exists, but there must be a few Harrow folk (Harrovians?? Or are they just Old Boys of the school?) who would remember.
This pseudo-red Ken speaks like the far right, by conflating MAPs with child rapists and murderers. His amalgams are similar to those of the EDL conflating Muslims with ISIS/Daesh. And this repugnant gutter tabloid “Morning Star”, which grotesquely dares to claim to be on the side of the Labour movement, is not better than the Murdoch press, see their “paedophilia” section: http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/t0a8747-paedophiles
These people should be publicly exposed for what they are: reactionary demagogues, allied to all fascists, conspiracy theorists, homophobes and antisemites; their self-styled “socialism” is just another variant of the “socialism of the fools”. One should uncover their complacency towards British imperialism, which is co-responsible of hundreds of thousands of child deaths (cf. Iraq), more than the total number of child murders by paedophiles recorded in history since the invention of writing.
The VP should take the lead of this righteous outrage; Ethan, Nick, are your weapons ready? Shoot!
The trouble is that the conspiracy theories about pedos in high places carry a lot of appeal for anti-establishment leftists (especially when it’s tories that are targeted). Russell Brand is another over-impressionable commentator, BTW.
About the anti-establishment leftists: I know people of this description, normally intelligent and reasonable, who practically hop up and down with joy at every new ‘revelation’ of VIP sex abuse, and are prepared to belive every word.
There is so much intense emotion wrapped up in this issue that even the most “left” of the Leftists throw their reason under the bus whenever the topic is broached. The entire culture is obsessed with the “protect innocence” mentality that children and young teens are forced to personify, and it easily travels across bipartisan barriers. There are very powerful emotional and political advantages to “believe” in even the most outrageous nonsense no matter what one’s political affiliation. For instance, there are too many leftists who continue to believe that promulgating even the most outrageous stories has the “bigger picture” benefit of bringing the issue of sexual abuse to the forefront of public attention. All the innocent people (mostly men) whose lives are destroyed by this nonsense are rationalized as being necessary sacrifices to insure that the issue remains an issue in the eyes of the public. Pushing the “pedophile in the neighborhood and all over cyberspace” myth also conveniently deters public scrutiny from what goes on all too often within the hidden walls of the nuclear family home.