Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former - Polidicks

[QUOTE]At first sight, it might be a harmless parish magazine or the newsletter of a respectable society of bird-watching enthusiasts. Called The Magpie, the now-yellowing A5-size pamphlet was distributed in the late Seventies to members of an organisation called the PIE. The inside cover carries a workmanlike ‘editor’s letter’ highlighting ‘our third annual AGM, which is to be held in London in the summer’, and inviting readers to seek election to ‘our Executive Committee’. Page three advertises a memorial service for recently deceased PIE member Alan Doggett, who worked as the conductor of the London Boys’ Choir, and was apparently to be remembered for his ‘friendliness, integrity and loyalty’. There follows a selection of short news stories, a letters page and several long feature articles, which are scholarly in tone and peppered with academic jargon. But it doesn’t take long for any right-minded person who flicks through The Magpie — dispatched quarterly in plain brown envelopes to up to 1,000 members — to realise that behind its matter-of-fact tone and appearance, something is terribly, terribly, amiss. For the initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange. This turns out to be the name of a far-Left lobby group which spent much of the Seventies and early Eighties publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex — and the age of consent to be lowered to four. Today, PIE has been widely forgotten. But at the time, it achieved prominence for circulating articles by tame psychologists and cod scientists promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles. Take, for example, a long article by Dr Edward Brongersma, a Dutch politician and academic who was renowned for his ultra-liberal views on sexual morality. ‘A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial,’ he argues, ‘providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.’ Take also an article in which a PIE member called Keith Spence, who had recently moved to Stockholm, writes of his (unsuccessful) efforts to abuse ‘heart-shatteringly beautiful’ children at the local swimming pool. ‘If you think England is frustrating for paedophiles, you should try living in Sweden for a bit,’ he complains. Towards the back of the journal are adverts for a book called Towards A Better Perspective For Boy-Lovers, and admiring reviews of magazines with names such as Male International, Kim, and Boys Express. Today, almost 35 years later, the contents of The Magpie seem so vile and amoral, and the activities of a lobby group dedicated to advancing the human rights of predatory paedophiles so disgusting, that it’s incredible either was allowed legally to exist at all. However, it now seems that the Paedophile Information Exchange wasn’t just tolerated by the liberal authorities of the time. There is growing evidence that the era’s Left-wing establishment saw it as a socially acceptable pressure group and actively encouraged its ugly campaigns and sinister public meetings.[/QUOTE] Read More: [URL="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html"]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html[/URL]

We need to bring that magazine back.

Oh OFLC you shit stirrer

[QUOTE]‘A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial,’ [B]he argues, ‘providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.’[/B][/QUOTE] That's a really dangerous assumption to make.

whose fucking idea was it to have a position called the "Shadow Minister?" that's just asking for trouble right there

[QUOTE]‘A sexual relationship between a child and an adult does not harm the child and may be even beneficial,’ he argues, ‘providing that the adult partner is considerate, loving and affectionate.’[/QUOTE] no sir they clearly aren't being fetishized more than actually loved by these kind of people [IMG]http://www.wnd.com/images2/namblabulletin.jpg[/IMG] nope

Children cannot consent to sex. This is to protect them from abuse from people in much higher positions of power than them, like every adult. It's not fucking complicated. However, there are of course, ranges of severity in this though. There's a big difference between a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and a 40 year old having sex with a 3 year old.

[QUOTE=Cone;43179492]whose fucking idea was it to have a position called the "Shadow Minister?" that's just asking for trouble right there[/QUOTE] There are many shadow ministers... lurking in the dark... waiting... always waiting...

[quote]publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex — and the age of consent to be lowered to four.[/quote] Dude!

Well, i feel like that wing party will be killed/prosecuted until they die.

[video=youtube;CMRVChjjFgY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMRVChjjFgY[/video]

[QUOTE=Cone;43179492]whose fucking idea was it to have a position called the "Shadow Minister?" that's just asking for trouble right there[/QUOTE] I think the fact that there's a position called the Shadow Minister immediately proves the superiority of the Westminster system of government.

[QUOTE]For the initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange. This turns out to be the name of a far-Left lobby group which spent much of the Seventies and early Eighties publicly calling for the legalisation of child sex —[B][I][U] and the age of consent to be lowered to four.[/U][/I][/B][/QUOTE] come the fuck on now.

[QUOTE=Aphtonites;43179532]no sir they clearly aren't being fetishized more than actually loved by these kind of people [IMG]http://www.wnd.com/images2/namblabulletin.jpg[/IMG] nope[/QUOTE] Women are fetishized in magazines all the time, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to having a loving relationship with a women. Just because magazines like playboy exist doesn't mean that all sex with women is exploitative. Also using NAMBLA to argue against age of consent reform is like using the Black Panthers to argue against racial equality, extremists and idiots exist within all groups.

[QUOTE=Chrisordie;43179586]There are many shadow ministers... lurking in the dark... waiting... always waiting...[/QUOTE] ...for your CHILDREN

[b]BEHOLD[/b] [url]http://www.labour.org.uk/labour-shadow-cabinet[/url] [b]THE SHADOW CABINET OF WESTMINSTER[/b]

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43179752]Women are fetishized in magazines all the time, that doesn't mean that it's impossible to having a loving relationship with a women. Just because magazines like playboy exist doesn't mean that all sex with women is exploitative. Also using NAMBLA to argue against age of consent reform is like using the Black Panthers to argue against racial equality, extremists and idiots exist within all groups.[/QUOTE] So you agree with this sort of thing? Maybe I'm missing something, but putting a child in a sexual relationship cannot be a good thing at all

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43180097]So you agree with this sort of thing? Maybe I'm missing something, but putting a child in a sexual relationship cannot be a good thing at all[/QUOTE] It depends what you mean by "this sort of thing". In the post you quoted I did call NAMBLA "extremists and idiots".

[QUOTE=Aidan_088;43180133]It depends what you mean by "this sort of thing". In the post you quoted I did call NAMBLA "extremists and idiots".[/QUOTE] You've also implicitly stated that not all pedophilia is exploitative

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;43180155]You've also implicitly stated that not all pedophilia is exploitative[/QUOTE] But it's simply factual to state that not all pedophilia is exploitative. There is the potential for it be exploitative (As there is in any relationship regardless of age) but it does not have to become exploitative. To be clear though I don't think any sort of relationship should be begun with someone who has not yet started puberty. It's been known at least since Rind's 1998 meta analysis that that majority of relationships between adults and adolescents are not harmful. Any psychological damage is caused by societies extremely negative reaction which shames and humiliates young people and only manages to harm the people it intends supposed to protect. I don't want to derail this thread. If you're interested in the subject and my views on it, I made a thread in the mass debates forum about it.

[QUOTE=blehblehbleh;43179554]Children cannot consent to sex. This is to protect them from abuse from people in much higher positions of power than them, like every adult. It's not fucking complicated. However, there are of course, ranges of severity in this though. There's a big difference between a 17 year old having sex with a 15 year old, and a 40 year old having sex with a 3 year old.[/QUOTE] To be honest, some of the distinctions are very arbitrary and dependent on time and location. What is wrong with say a 15 year old having consensual sex with a 17 year old? A 16 year old can legally have sex with a 45 year old, despite the greater disparity in development and experience between the two.

Seeing as how this is a Daily Mail article how much of it is actually true How long until we learn that Magpie was actually a magazine for bird-watching

[quote]Take also an article in which a PIE member called Keith Spence, who had recently moved to Stockholm, writes of his (unsuccessful) efforts to abuse ‘heart-shatteringly beautiful’ children at the local swimming pool. ‘If you think England is frustrating for paedophiles, you should try living in Sweden for a bit,’ he complains.[/quote] what the fuck

Surprised the FP pedo apologist squad didn't hit this thread already

[QUOTE=Heroku;43180519]Surprised the FP pedo apologist squad didn't hit this thread already[/QUOTE] Is this another invented group of enemies to use straw arguments against?

[QUOTE=Heroku;43180519]Surprised the FP pedo apologist squad didn't hit this thread already[/QUOTE] Why would they? They don't advocate actual physical relationships between adults and underaged individuals(Underaged being somewhere around Below 16 years of age)

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;43180581]Is this another invented group of enemies to use straw arguments against?[/QUOTE] there are literal pedophiles on this forum and it makes me sick.

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;43180600]there are literal pedophiles on this forum and it makes me sick.[/QUOTE] I don't feel animosity towards pedophiles. There isn't anything inherently wrong with them, unless they actually go out and harm children.

[QUOTE=Kai-ryuu;43180600]there are literal pedophiles on this forum and it makes me sick.[/QUOTE] funny thing, last time we had a pedophile thread, Aiden_088 was banned for being one.

[QUOTE=lintz;43180659]funny thing, last time we had a pedophile thread, Aiden_088 was banned for being one.[/QUOTE] Incorrectly though. I may think the age of consent should be changed but not enough to effect pedophiles.