More dirty secrets from the liberal closet that they want kept closed.

How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? Even Left demands answers from senior Labour trio over links to child sex group

Pressure mounts on Harriet Harman, her MP husband and Patricia Hewitt
[*]Trio held key roles in group that backed Paedophile Information Exchange
[*]Columnists in Observer, Guardian and Mirror urge all three to speak out
[*]They were leading officials in group that granted 'affiliate' status to PIE
[*]Predatory paedophiles in PIE wanted the age of consent to be cut to four

By Guy Adams and Tim Shipman

PUBLISHED: 23:19 GMT, 23 February 2014 | UPDATED: 23:50 GMT, 23 February 2014

Pressure is mounting on three Labour grandees to explain their links with a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children.

MPs, commentators and even Labour-supporting newspapers lined up yesterday to attack the silence of the party’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her MP husband and former minister Patricia Hewitt.

The chorus of condemnation follows the Mail’s devastating series of reports into how the trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

Labour's deputy leader: Harriet Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the National Council for Civil Liberties's legal officer in 1978 until 1982

Will he respond to the Mail's questions? Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Jack Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970 to 1979

Although the BBC has ignored the story, those calling for the trio to explain themselves include Left-wing commentators who would normally be expected to back them.

Carole Malone in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. She said: ‘How can they ever again be taken seriously on ANY issue if they stay silent?’

In the Observer newspaper, a columnist said the Labour trio ‘cannot stay silent on this child sex claim’, adding it would be ‘a grave mistake for them to stay silent or curtly dismissive, perhaps hoping that the claims will magically disappear’.

The Guardian’s Roy Greenslade wrote last week: ‘I’m with the Mail on this one . . . I think Harman, Dromey and Hewitt do need to address this matter seriously.’

'People of different ages being nice to each other': The autumn 1982 edition of Rights, the in-house magazine of the NCCL. Self-confessed paedophile Mike Morten's letter was published on page 9 (pictured centre)

Document: This is the cover page of the NCCL's submission to Parliament on the 1976 Sexual Offences Act held at the LSE library, which suggests that the age of consent be lowered to 14

Damning: On page six 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'

Kevin Maguire, the Daily Mirror’s associate editor and cheerleader for a Labour government, tweeted: ‘Agree with @GreensladeR on NCCL-PIE. If I were Harman, Dromey or Hewitt, I’d want to set the record straight.’

The Mail has revealed how, before they became MPs, the three were leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) which granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.

The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.

The NCCL itself lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten – if the child ‘understood the nature of the act’ – and called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a ‘Lolita’s charter’.

Questions being asked: Former minister Patricia Hewitt was the NCCL general secretary from 1974 to 1983

Annual report for 1975: Patricia Hewitt published this document in April 1976, which included a 'gay rights' section on page ten defending the Paedophile Information Exchange and its members

Defence: Ms Hewitt had described the Paedophile Action for Liberation group, which changed its name to PIE that year, as 'a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children'

Last night Tory MP Rob Wilson said: ‘When left-wing commentators such as Roy Greenslade and Carole Malone demand answers from these three senior Labour politicians, you know that this is not so much a political issue between Right and Left, but one about right and wrong.’

Fellow Tory MP Philip Davies added: ‘They should certainly provide an explanation and clarification as to whether they still hold these views or not.

‘They’re among the first to jump down anyone else’s throats if anyone challenges their politically-correct shibboleths.’

Police are investigating PIE as part of Operation Fernbridge, launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

A source with knowledge of the inquiry says there is evidence PIE members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

AGM minutes: This page reveals how the PIE was represented at an NCCL AGM at the University of Lancaster. Below the list of organisations present is Jack Dromey's name, after he was re-elected to the executive committee of the NCCL in 1977

Columnists: Carole Malone (left) in the Labour-supporting Sunday Mirror angrily demanded that Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Jack Dromey speak up about why they supported the paedophile agenda in the 1970s. And Rod Liddle (right), writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story

The Mail has repeatedly asked the Labour trio to answer vital questions about their time at the NCCL.

Miss Hewitt, the former Health Secretary, was its general secretary from 1974-83. She described PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’.

Ed Miliband’s home affairs spokesman, Mr Dromey, sat on the NCCL executive committee for almost a decade, from 1970-79.

His wife Miss Harman was a newly qualified solicitor when she became the NCCL’s legal officer in 1978 until 1982.

None of the three has commented on the Mail’s revelations, except for Miss Harman whose spokesman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

In the newspapers, commentators from Left and Right condemned the trio for failing to explain their actions.

Observer columnist Barbara Ellen wrote: ‘The fact remains that some very disturbing things went down, including the legitimising of a group that wasn’t even bothering to hide the word “paedophile” in its name.

‘Who would want their own good name indelibly attached to something like this, especially without sufficient reply? A calm, thorough, intelligent response is required.’

Miss Malone wrote: ‘There’s never been a time when it’s been OK for adults to have sex with children… If any opposition politician was implicated in such a scandal, Harman and Hewitt would be on their moral high horses demanding explanations.

‘But they and Dromey have point-blank refused to explain their links with this wicked group. That silence has made them look weak and cowardly.’

And Rod Liddle, writing in the Sunday Times, criticised the BBC for its silence on the story.

He wrote: ‘So far, only a handful of newspapers have reported the fact that three very senior Labour party figures had rather close links with the group back in the good ol’ Seventies.

‘Can you imagine how the media – and especially the BBC – would react if three current senior Conservative MPs were revealed to have had links to a paedophile group?’

Last night a BBC spokesman said: ‘BBC News is an impartial, independent news organisation and decides its editorial priorities based on merit alone and without external help.

‘The story in question is not new and instead we have followed several big breaking news stories this weekend.’

... AND THE VITAL QUESTIONS THEY STILL REFUSE TO ANSWER

The Mail has posed a series of vital questions to Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey. They include:

To Harman, Hewitt and Dromey:

During your time with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), it gave significant support to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Do you regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of this vile organisation you helped legitimise?

To Hewitt and Dromey:

The NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status to PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?

PIE submitted a report to MPs claiming that ‘girls as young as four months can achieve orgasm’, and that four-year-old children can ‘communicate verbally their consent to sex’. Given these utterly repellent views, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?

The NCCL made a written submission to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission, arguing: ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.’ On what basis, scientific or otherwise, did you make this extraordinary claim?

The submission also called for the crime of incest be abolished, arguing that the suggestion that genetic damage may result from children born of incestuous unions ‘is in direct contradiction to the practices of successful animal breeders’. Do you still take this view?

To Harman:

The NCCL’s affiliation with PIE, its support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent, and its demand for the legalisation of incest were all widely reported throughout the 1970s. Why, given these morally offensive views, did you then take a job as legal adviser to the NCCL?

Donald Trump and Jeffrey Esptein are buddies. Tump's name was in Epstein's black book. Fill in the rest of the blanks...

 

So how does it feel liberals, to know that you have fallen this far? That you are just as bad as those pedophiles and perverts on the right such as Warren Farrell, that asshole who masquerades as a men's rights activist these days?

http://www.thelizlibrary.org/s.....rrell2.htm

 

(Quoted material from article is in blue; the article's quotes of Farrell are in blue bold, and liznotes in black.)

Incest would be just another media trend, faddishly seduced and abandoned after repeated use, were it not for two forthcoming studies that promise to turn the prohibition on its head. Both introduce and uphold the notion of positive incest, an especially dissonant oxymoron that will madden therapists and confuse the masses more than the Kinsey reports did twenty-five years ago...
Kinsey collaborator Dr. Paul Gebhard, currently director of the Institute for Sex Research in Bloomington, Indiana... is releasing Kinsey's startling incest material for incorporation in Warren Farrell's work-in-progress, The Last Taboo: the Three Faces of Incest...
NBC'S "Weekend" visit to the Santa Clara County Child Sexual Abuse Treatment Center in San Jose will not help Farrell and Ramey convince anybody that incest is less than a scourge. Host Lloyd Dobyns was so depressed by the content that he told the audience in his introduction that he wasn't sure he'd watch himself if it weren't his own program. What followed was a montage of contrite fathers and exploited daughters pouring out unrelievedly sad stories of incest and grief. To interrupt the monotony of the documentary, producer Clare Crawford-Mason frequently cut to Hank Giaretto, director of the treatment center, for background and wisdom on the taboo. Giaretto was positively against incest and linked it to prostitution, drug abuse, and sexual dysfunction in daughter victims. In his experience the normally repressed impluse overpowered law-abiding, middle-class fathers when they were down and out professionally and alienated from their wives. These men looked toward their blossoming daughters first for consolation and then for sex...
Warren Farrell admires Giaretto's rehabilitative mission among legitimate victims, for his own investigation of positive incest allows for considerable negativity, particularly in the father-daughter category. But he faults "Weekend" for its skewed perspective. "It was like interviewing Cuban refugees about Cuba. 'Weekend' recorded sexually abused children speaking about their sexual abuse, which is valuable, but the inference is that all incest is abuse. And that's not true."

..Although he vowed not to speak out prior to publication (probably in 1979), he consented to a one-time debriefing at a Chinese restaurant near his Riverside Drive apartment overlooking the Hudson River in Manhatten. At thirty-four, he is separated from his wife, who is an IBM executive, and childless...
[according to Farrell] Mother-son incest represents 10 percent of the incidence and is 70 percent positive, 20 percent mixed, and 10 percent negative for the son. For the mother it is mostly positive. Farrell points out that boys don't seem to suffer, not even from the negative experience. "Girls are much more influenced by the dictates of society and are more willing to take on sexual guilt."

The father-daughter scene, ineluctably complicated by feelings of dominance and control, is not nearly so sanguine. Despite some advertisements, calling explicitly for positive female experiences [now there's objective research for you], Farrell discovered that 85 percent of the daughters admitted to having negative attitudes toward their incest. [Could we phrase this a little more mildly?] Only 15 percent felt positive about the experience. On the other hand, statistics from the vantage of the fathers involved were almost the reverse -- 60 percent positive 10 percent mixed, and 20 percent negative. "Either men see these relationships differently," comments Farrell, "or I am getting selective reporting from women." [i.e. men tell the truth, women lie.]

In a typical traumatic case, an authoritarian father, unhappily married in a sexually repressed household [i.e it's the mother's fault] and probably unemployed, drunkenly imposes himself on his young daughter. [i.e it's not a traumatic case if dad is sober and gentle.] Genital petting may have started as early as age eight with first intercourse occurring around twelve [i.e. it's "genital petting", not "molestation"]. Since the father otherwise extends very little attention to his daughter, his sexual advances may be one of the few pleasant experiences she has with him. [i.e. give him joint custody, he needs more time] If she is unaware of society's taboo and if the mother does not intervene [it's the mother's fault], she has no reason to suspect the enormity of the aberration. But when she grows up and learns of the taboo, she feels cheapened. [i.e. it's everyone's but the father's fault.] If she comes from the lower class, she may turn to prostitution or drugs... The trauma is spread through all classes, Farrell observes, but incest is more likely to be negative in the lower class... [i.e. rules don't apply to important men.]

"When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200," says Farrell, "the incest is part of the family's open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve -- and in one or two cases to join in." [just a wholesome family, not a couple of perverts.]

[Re one of Farrell's reported "case studies"] ... the writer happened to be at his beach house alone with his attractive fifteen-year-old daughter.... His wife's appendix operation had curtailed his sex for the previous five months... the women on the beach and a few beers had led him into special temptation. When the daughter emerged from the bathroom in a towel, he greeted her in the nude and erect. Although he had never consciously desired incest before [that seducing vixen], he told his daughter he missed sex. Without further prompting, she fellated him...Two weeks later the daughter walked around the house naked until the father approached her. That day he deflowered her to their mutual satisfaction. But the father was careful not to push things. He did not want to hurt his daughter, who seemed to have an active sex life with boys her own age. [He "deflowered" her but she had an active sex life.] Several weeks later, the daughter took the initiative again... [note how innocent the man is throughout this entire little scenario.]

Farrell realizes the risks that attend publication of this book. "In a society where men are powerful and exploitive and insensitive to women's feelings, which is reinforced by female adaptiveness and a daughter's lack of power, data like these can be used as an excuse for the continuation and magnification of that exploitation. When I consider that, I almost don't want to write the book." [liznote: cf Myth of Male Power: Farrell does not believe that this is the way society is, but rather, that it's women exploiting men.]
Since neither victim nor benefactor needs Farrell's confirmation, why does he gamble with bringing on a sexual deluge? "First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn't. My book should at least begin the exploration."
"Second, I'm finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective." [He's a psychologist? No. Farrell''s Ph.D. is in political science]
Farrell also hopes to change public attitudes so that participants in incest will no longer be automatically perceived as victims. "The average incest participant can't evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy."
If pushed to the wall, would Farrell urge incest on families? "Incest is like a magnifying glass," he summarizes. "In some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of the relationship..."

Old Mr Dangerous said
You spent so much time on this. 

Three quick copy and paste jobs of old articles I have saved in my files ain't no thing. So I don't know what you're talking about.

What's really wrong, homie?

Liberal hypocrisy, obviously. I am upset by their descent into madness with their rape/pedophile apologetics - something they used to castigate the right wing for. They have become what they hate. I am disgusted with my own tribe. I hate regressives on BOTH SIDES. I'm like the youtuber atheism-is-unstoppable.

Iris The Tranny juggalette said
So like, is getting all those things together and researching them and typing them out.

Is that like, fun to you? 

Like how I like to write long ass reviews of shit to just rattle my brain off. 

I mean if it lets you vent and blow off steam. By all means keep doing it, I mean why not. 

I do the same thing all the time just in different ways.

But if your goal is to actually change minds and not just blow off steam you might wanna reevaluate your, everything.

Its just, you're doing it a lot, just wanna make sure you're doing it because you actually want to.  

Yes I know many people on this board don't have the patience or mental dexterity to read something that's a little more in depth than ICP rap lyrics or pathetic virtue signaling. I understand that. You don't have to keep telling me.  I noticed this when people couldn't refute the stuff I gathered and posted about the "gang list." LOL. I noticed it once again when KLF kept dodging evidence of Muslim controlled no go zones in Europe, and also when Pigg admitted to dodging posts that I made in response to a series of videos called "the alt-right playbook" that HE HIMSELF POSTED!

King Lucem Ferre said
Pelosi isn't a liberal

Right on time...

 

From this topic:

 

From here:

As of January 2007, the first female Speaker of the House. Elected in November 2006 when Democrats took control of the House and Senate. She has led the House Democrats since 2002.

She is a fairly strong liberal, earning a 100% rating from the American Civil Liberties Union, a liberal group, and a score of 3% from the American Conservative Union.

A brief characterization of her political positions:

- Favors implementing the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
- Voted against the Iraq war
- Opposes drilling in ANWR
- Supports increasing the minimum wage
- Supports increasing Medicare and Medicaid benefits
- Pro-choice
- Opposes amending the constitution to prohibit gay marriage
- Opposes amending the constitution to prohibit flag burning

Protecting flag burning, protecting gay marriage, protection abortion access, supporting higher minimum wage apparently doesn't make someone a liberal in KLF's mind.