The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty) and Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) along with PAL were in the past affiliated to each other together with a number of current high profile individuals

As a bit of background - the values of Liberty are espoused by the following

  • '.. we are a cross party, non-party membership organisation at the heart of the movement for fundamental rights and freedoms in the UK ..'
  • '.. We promote the values of individual human dignity, equal treatment and fairness as the foundations of a democratic society ..'

Therefore the question has to be - how come the NCCL got it so wrong over PIE by lobbying on their behalf for rules that would DENY THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

Furthermore, if you look at Liberties timeline on their web site, all references to PIE seem to have been conveniently air-brushed out of their history ?

Just to recap on the NCCL submission to Parliament at the time:

'.. 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 ..'

Now just read the previous paragraph again - yes you understood it correctly

Some of todays high profile people involved with the NCCL at the time of their involvement with PIE were:

  • Patricia Hewitt (General Secretary) - later Labour Party Heath Secretary, also implicated in the Expenses Scandal and the Cash For Influence Scandal
  • Harriet Harman (Legal Officer)
  • Jack Dromey - became Harriet Harmans husband

Even now there are uncomfortable links with Liberty and ARK Academy Schools (Dutrox Scandal - Belgium lates 1990's) and Sally Morgan Ofsted Chair Ofsted chair Sally Morgan - husband with Liberty (NCCL)

Finally let us not forget that Shami Chakrabati (The real scandal at the LSE) has also been involved in an unsavoury situation with the LSE. Whilst we are on the LSE have a look at Helen Reece - sex offenders should be able to adopt



Wikipedia - National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty)

Paedophile Information Exchange

How Hattie’s (Harriet Harman's) friends defended paedophilia

Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law

Strange But True (spiders web of links)

Tags: , | Categories: Human Rights

It almost seems as though the politicians had an acceptable idea but suddenly realised what they are saying. The effect on them personally would be unpalatable and they have suddenly decided to backtrack by 'rubbishing' their own idea

Well chaps we have a good idea about raising more revenue - but oops.. we are going to be in the firing line. Unfortunately we have already gone live with the message so now we need to discredit it to get ourselves off the hook

What on earth is the flaw in removing the cap on domestic rates and charging everyone irrespective of location or property the same fixed annual percent on the value of their house? The value of their house would be determined by the last recorded purchase price on Land Registry; which means there can be no argument about value

There are many benefits from such an approach:

  • Asset rich/cash poor people who have had their house for many years would only be charged on the original purchase price of the property 10-20 years ago
  • Equitable - everyone would be treated in the same manner and pay the same proportion of their property value. No free-ride for high value properties
  • Simple to collect with no challenges to valuations - after all you bought it at the price recorded in Land Registry
  • Easy to change the rate percent universally
  • With some 'Tax Avoidance' schemes (or IHT wheezes) the only tangible asset is the persons residence and to collect tax (rates) in this manner each year would be one way of mitigating the eventual avoidance

Of course the downside is that those with expensive properties would suffer an additional burden but surely that is recognised one as of the attributes of purchasing this type of property

There we have it! - the only hurdle to charging the same percent all round for rates is the will of the politicians; after all none of us would want them to be out of pocket

Tags: | Categories: UK Government

08 October 2012

Child Poverty Action Group's Chief Executive, Alison Garnham - CPAG Press Release

'.. With this abhorrent proposal, the Chancellor is saying that some children will be marked out from birth as second class citizens with their lives worth less than others ..'

'.. The Chancellor is utterly wrong to claim that families out of work are better off having more children. If a family without work has another child, the shortfall relative to a family’s minimum need increases and parents must make even more sacrifices to meet their children’s needs. But working families do better because on top of wages they can get in-work benefits like tax credits and housing benefit ..'

This is an inherently flawed Press Release ..... all it does is ignore the obvious in favour of providing emotive language and more unlimited financial support. At what point do the families concerned try to help themselves with fewer children and endeavouring to avoid generational benefit dependency?

Lets address the statement '.. some children will be marked out from birth as second class citizens with their lives worth less than others ..' The only difference here is that other sectors of the community decide not to have further children in the first place (because they may not be able to support them) rather that producing children and then holding the community to ransom with comments such as this one from CPAG.

The important missing word here is 'choice' and with this in mind why do some of those on benefits produce more children that other sectors of the community? If this is not the case then the CPAG comments have no basis because there would be nothing to defend!

JRF (Joseph Rowntree) Foundation - Child Poverty In Large Families (3/4 or more children) recognises the greater incidence of poverty in larger families but rather than addressing the root cause tries to ameliorate the situation by concentrating on the tax situation instead of encouraging smaller families for those on benefits.

The real question is surely - why are these organisation refusing to address the difficult issues?

'.. However, in 2004/5, 50 per cent of children in 4+-child families were poor compared with only 23 per cent in one-child families ..'

'.. Helping large families at the expense of small families may lead to an increase in child poverty overall, because of the relative numbers of children in the different-sized families ..'

Furthermore, there does not seem to be anything about 'social responsibility' or the 'affordability' of having families larger than ones income can sustain; which the rest of the community must take into account.

Having looked at CPAG's web site and accompanying information there do not seem to be any suggested solutions put forward by CPAG themselves on how to address these difficult issues; other than demanding a infinite amount of resources to be channelled into the problem.

Is the solution really simply a financial one? What about encouraging smaller families or is 'restraint' a dirty word that none of these organisations wishes to address?

Tags: | Categories: UK Government

The lid has finally been lifted on a shameful period in the BBC's history, where child abuse was the norm in some circles and seemingly joked about, whilst rumours abounded and no-one did anything to investigate or protect the vulnerable!

Jimmy Saville may now be immune from investigation but not all those who participated in these activities are dead and despite the conspiracy of silence, all involved should be held to account.

Passage of time does not diminish the severity of the punishment of the seriousness of their actions, and nor does it exonerate them from the full weight of the law. Quite frankly if they have to be 'banged up' for the rest of their lives and reparation to the victims amounting to their entire current wealth then so be it. Stripping them of everything they hold dear (money, status etc.) is not nearly enough to compensate for their actions, but an acceptable start!

No doubt some 'pillars of the community' are becoming worried that their own part in this episode will come to light - and well they damn should be because it should be exposed, and result in 'naming and shaming'

Now we are getting a whole litany of excuses are being aired by apologists. You know the sort of thing:

  • It was a different era in those days
  • Everyone knew rumours but we were powerless to act
  • People were not aware that these things went on or were not right

Frankly none of these excuses wash! What does it take for people to have a 'moral compass' and know the basic difference between right and wrong?

Quite a number of pop icons have made comments in the past that should have rung alarm bells with the establishment, but for one reason or another clearly failed to do so. 

Take this little gem from John Peel - his own words!

'.. Girls, some as young as 13, he said, used to queue up outside his studio to offer him sexual favours. ‘Well, of course, I didn’t ask for ID,’ he said ..'

'.. All they wanted me to do was to abuse them sexually which, of course I was only too happy to do ..'

In what fantasy land are these comments remotely acceptable and why did nobody at the BBC pick up this statement or question it?

'.. The allegations made — and casually dismissed both within and outside the BBC ..' - who 'casually dismissed' at the BBC - names please of those at the BBC who dismissed the matter

Unfortunately, the entire situation was all probably compounded by the refusal of the police to act and the perceived impunity of the celebrities involved; which resulted in no-one believing these girls

'.. It would be ridiculous to connect anyone or anything mentioned in her diary with reality,’ a police spokesman said at the time ..'

Even those in the BBC such as Esther Rantzen, who symbolised child protection (Child Line) claim to have known about the rumours and did absolutely nothing - why?

Make no mistake if you knew about it (even the rumours) and did nothing then you to are involved and a contributing factor to continued abuse, so how does this sit with your conscience; and this includes the police - everyone needs to be scrutinised

Finally as a start to investigating the past, the diary of Claire McAlpine (15 year old who committed suicide) should be placed in the public domain for all to see. If those named in the diary wish to sue the author then so be it, but hopefully they will have as much success as the victims suing Jimmy Saville today!


Daily Mail - Claire McAlpine - 15 Year Old Who Killed Herself

Daily Telegraph - Jimmy Savile allegations: Esther Rantzen's response defies belief

Tags: | Categories: Human Rights

The latest example of this are members of the police force (Chief Constable Sir Norman Bettison - Hillsborough)

Probably more important is whether retirement heads off any further investigation and why are they permitted to retire early on 'gold-plated' pensions?

If there is a case to answer and it is proven then they should be stripped of their pension - after all the state should not really be in the game of rewarding failure or wrong doing with taxpayers money

Therefore can someone please explain why these individuals are permitted to retire rather than face due process and if found guilty thrown out

Tags: | Categories: UK Government