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

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