UK: Three senior Labour pols campaigned for pedophile group in the 1980’s


Locutus
+1
#1
via bcf


On page 6 of the document it is argued that ‘a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent’ and the age of sexual consent cut to ten ‘if the child understood the nature of the act’

Appearing in the pages of a Left-wing magazine called Rights, it was, by any account, an extraordinary letter.

Written by one Mike Morten, who lived in London and described himself as ‘both a paedophile and gay’, the letter complained that laws forbidding him from having sex with children ‘interfere with my life and civil liberties’.

‘Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued. Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.

The letter was dated October 1982, and today his words seem so bizarre, so appalling, that a casual reader could be forgiven for wondering if they are a grotesque spoof.

One of a string of AGM motions filed by NCCL employee Nettie Pollard supporting the Paedophile Information Exchange's agenda

The now dog-eared 1982 magazine, which I have unearthed in archives, was the quarterly journal of the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), the well-known lobby group which is now called Liberty.

Known as a radical campaigning organisation, the NCCL was that year being run by three tub-thumping young Left-wingers who would rise to extremely senior positions in the Labour Party.

One was Patricia Hewitt, who as general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983 was at the helm of the organisation. She went on to become Tony Blair’s Health Secretary, and nowadays has a lucrative seat as a non-executive director on the board of BT earning £160,000 a year for a part-time job.

[...]

Another was Harriet Harman, the current Labour Deputy Leader. She served as its legal officer from 1978 until October 28, 1982, when she won a by-election and entered Parliament as the MP for Camberwell and Peckham...

more



Labour's child sex apologists: 3 of party's senior figures campaigned for paedophile group | Mail Online
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#2
I see resignations later this week.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+2 / -1
#3
I guess those three lefties believed in free speech. Isn't the left often criticised for not being proponents of free speech?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+2 / -1
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I guess those three lefties believed in free speech. Isn't the left often criticised for not being proponents of free speech?

Free speech- yeah- You defend these perverts all you want.

Appearing in the pages of a Left-wing magazine called Rights, it was, by any account, an extraordinary letter.

Written by one Mike Morten, who lived in London and described himself as ‘both a paedophile and gay’, the letter complained that laws forbidding him from having sex with children ‘interfere with my life and civil liberties’.

That is a keeper for the S&G Thread.
Last edited by Goober; Feb 19th, 2014 at 10:05 PM..
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+2
#5
I got as far as this: "the age of sexual consent cut to ten ‘if the child understood the nature of the act’ " and felt like giving the monitor a smack upside the head. Since when does a child of 10 understand all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood? And if they DO understand all that, they should be able to understand everything involved in governing a nation that would vest that much power in them. Unf'nreal. Ditch the fool who suggested such a thing. And that has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with good sense.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Free speech- yeah- You defend these perverts all you want.


Do you not believe people have the right to express unpopular opinions?
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1 / -1
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Do you not believe people have the right to express unpopular opinions?

You go with that. Oh yes, go far.

Anudder Red- Really.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+2
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

You go with that. Oh yes, go far.


I see I've asked you a difficult question. Perhaps you should of thought first before you posted your silliness
 
Goober
Free Thinker
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I got as far as this: "the age of sexual consent cut to ten ‘if the child understood the nature of the act’ " and felt like giving the monitor a smack upside the head. Since when does a child of 10 understand all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood? And if they DO understand all that, they should be able to understand everything involved in governing a nation that would vest that much power in them. Unf'nreal. Ditch the fool who suggested such a thing. And that has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with good sense.

You got farther that I did before I was revolted.
One would call this free speech- myself I differ- but it brings those 3 and others into the public light where they breakdown like compost.
The Internet is forever.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I got as far as this: "the age of sexual consent cut to ten ‘if the child understood the nature of the act’ " and felt like giving the monitor a smack upside the head. Since when does a child of 10 understand all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood?

From what I've seen, if understanding "all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood" is going to be the standard, we'll have to raise the age of consent to about 43. Or higher.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

From what I've seen, if understanding "all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood" is going to be the standard, we'll have to raise the age of consent to about 43. Or higher.

Nope- Studies show that males sperm degrades after a certain age resulting in increased genetic defects with the child.
 
Tecumsehsbones
+3
#12  Top Rated Post
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Nope- Studies show that males sperm degrades after a certain age resulting in increased genetic defects with the child.

Males' sperm? There's another kind?
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

You got farther that I did before I was revolted.
One would call this free speech- myself I differ- but it brings those 3 and others into the public light where they breakdown like compost.
The Internet is forever.

I see you're avoiding the question. Das should be here any minute with some dancing guy.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
-1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

Males' sperm? There's another kind?

For some you have to be crystal clear- I am sure you have met them.
A few reside here.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by TecumsehsbonesView Post

From what I've seen, if understanding "all the ramifications of sexual activities and parenthood" is going to be the standard, we'll have to raise the age of consent to about 43. Or higher.

That would make more sense than what these cretins proposed ..... even back then.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

That would make more sense than what these cretins proposed ..... even back then.


Not "these"...."he". It was one guy that wrote the letter. They were just willing to publish it. Perhaps they just agreed that he had the right to his opinion. Some people believe in free speech even if they don't like what is being said. I consider myself one of those and I do wonder about the motivations behind the OP.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#17
I think the topic has more to do with age of consent, sexual interference, etc. than it has to do with freedom of speech. How bout sticking with the topic?

Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Not "these"...."he". It was one guy that wrote the letter. They were just willing to publish it. Perhaps they just agreed that he had the right to his opinion. Some people believe in free speech even if they don't like what is being said. I consider myself one of those and I do wonder about the motivations behind the OP.

"One of a string of AGM motions filed by NCCL employee Nettie Pollard supporting the Paedophile Information Exchange's agenda "
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

I think the topic has more to do with age of consent, sexual interference, etc. than it has to do with freedom of speech. How bout sticking with the topic?


It is the topic. These people are being criticised for this guys letter. There is nothing in the OP that stated they supported the reduction in the age of consent. The title of the thread is ..."three senior Labour pols"... perhaps you should have read it before you started telling others what the topic was or wasn't about.
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

It is the topic. These people are being criticised for this guys letter. There is nothing in the OP that stated they supported the reduction in the age of consent. The title of the thread is ..."three senior Labour pols"... perhaps you should have read it before you started telling others what the topic was or wasn't about.

You missed it again, I guess. "One of a string of AGM motions filed by NCCL employee Nettie Pollard supporting the Paedophile Information Exchange's agenda" Nothing in the OP stated they supported the reduction in the age of consent, huh? The title of the thread is "three senior Labour pols ...campaigned FOR ped"
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

You missed it again, I guess.

Nope. Can't miss it if it's not there. Btw...why are you against freedom of speech?
 
darkbeaver
Republican
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nope. Can't miss it if it's not there. Btw...why are you against freedom of speech?

Maybe you are an example of tolerance gone awry eh.
 
Goober
Free Thinker
-1
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Maybe you are an example of tolerance gone awry eh.

Yes, that one is out of the park- A Grand Slam.

 
DaSleeper
+1 / -1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

Yes, that one is out of the park- A Grand Slam.

Just Cannuck's usual childish trolling
 
Goober
Free Thinker
-1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Just Cannuck's usual childish trolling

Well he is slow at that- same old, same old and same old style.
Demonstrates limitations.
Loved DB's post though.
 
Blackleaf
#25
Quote:

On page 6 of the document it is argued that ‘a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent’

Up until 2008 14 was the age of consent in Canada. Now, even though it has been raised to 16, it is still legal for anyone to have sex with a 14 year old in Canada as long as they aren't more than 5 years older.

In Scotland, 14 was the age of consent for boys up until 2010. Then it was increased to 16, which it had already been for girls.

In England (and Wales) the age of consent was 12 between 1275 and 1875. In 1875 it was raised to 13.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaverView Post

Maybe you are an example of tolerance gone awry eh.

Are you also against free speech when you disagree with the content?

Quote: Originally Posted by DaSleeperView Post

Just Cannuck's usual childish trolling

Speaking of trolls, do you have anything to add to this thread?
 
L Gilbert
No Party Affiliation
+1
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

Nope. Can't miss it if it's not there.

Quote:

Btw...why are you against freedom of speech?

Oh, it is there, but you just wanted to start one of your pointless arguments and take the thread off-topic. If you want to be civil and discuss what others are discussing, fine, if not, don't bother replying to this post.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Oh, it is there, but you just wanted to start one of your pointless arguments and take the thread off-topic. If you want to be civil and discuss what others are discussing, fine, if not, don't bother replying to this post.

The topic of the thread is the three Labour Politicians. It's not my fault if you want to make up your own topic but you should do it on another thread. It would only be fair

Having said that....the "right" organization gave a soap box to an individual you claimed his rights were being trampled. Do you, or do you not, agree with allowing the soap box? It really isn't a difficult question.
 
taxslave
No Party Affiliation
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by CannuckView Post

I guess those three lefties believed in free speech. Isn't the left often criticised for not being proponents of free speech?

Most leftys are only proponents of free speech for those that agree with them. Opposing views are not to be tolerated. I was once told as much on a tree hugger site.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslaveView Post

Most leftys are only proponents of free speech for those that agree with them. Opposing views are not to be tolerated. I was once told as much on a tree hugger site.

That's pretty funny considering non of this sites "rightys" have stated that the pedophile has the right to express his opinion so I think it swings both ways. I would have thought that one person that was upset on the other thread about Ezra and his right to free speech would have come to this thread and at least agreed that guy should be allowed his say
 

Similar Threads

5
Dems pols try anything to win
by Walter | Sep 10th, 2012
3
December 8, 1980
by sanctus | Dec 8th, 2006
no new posts