Labour and PIE

Sunday, 15 December 2013

The Paedophile Information Exchange and the Left-Wing Establishment

On 14 December 2013, Guy Adams told us this in The Mail Online

“Called The Magpie, the now-yellowing A5-size pamphlet was distributed in the late Seventies to members of an organisation called the PIE… The initials PIE stand for Paedophile Information Exchange… 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, 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. Indeed, it emerged this week that THE LABOUR GOVERNMENT OF THE SEVENTIES MAY EVEN HAVE HELPED FINANCE THE ORGANISATION AND ITS MORALLY BANKRUPT PUBLICATION THE MAGPIE… The Home Office…will examine whether tens of thousands of pounds of taxpayers’ money was funnelled to it via the Voluntary Services Unit…
It… raises tricky questions for three of the most senior Labour figures of recent times: deputy leader Harriet Harman, former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, and shadow housing minister Jack Dromey, a former party treasurer and Harman’s husband… This trio had strangely close links to the Paedophile Information Exchange…
Harman, Hewitt and Dromey first encountered the PIE when they were cutting their political teeth as young officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties. This tub-thumping human rights organisation, these days known as Liberty, was far more radical than its modern equivalent, and was actively forging alliances with a host of ultra-liberal pressure groups. One such group was the PIE.
In 1975, it somehow succeeded in convincing the NCCL to grant it official ‘affiliate’ status. The move was a signal victory for radical Left-wing activists, who had for years lobbied for more ‘enlightened’ attitudes towards sex between adults and children. It was also, of course, a PR coup for those who sought to promote paedophilia.
‘The PIE somehow managed to convince feminists and the gay rights lobby that they had shared values and that we all belonged in the same club,’ recalls one feminist writer whose magazine was lobbied for support by the PIE after the Exchange won NCCL affiliation. ‘Anyone who spoke out against them feared being called a ‘homophobe,’ which in Left-wing circles at the time was about the biggest insult anyone could throw at you. So they were invited into the liberal establishment.’
A PIE ‘information’ leaflet published at the time, called Paedophilia: Some Questions And Answers, shows how the organisation had managed to ally its cause to the gay rights movement. ‘Homosexuals are now widely regarded as ordinary, healthy people, a minority, but no more ‘ill’ than the minority who are left-handed,’ it read. ‘There is no reason why paedophilia should not win similar acceptance.’
The NCCL, then under the chairmanship of Henry Hodge, the Left-wing solicitor who would go on to marry Labour MP Margaret Hodge, appears to have bought this argument hook, line and sinker. ‘The PIE was also being PICKETED BY THE NATIONAL FRONT, so a lot of people also supported them on the basis that our enemy’s enemy had to be our friend’…
Over the ensuing years, the NCCL, which had Hewitt as its General Secretary from 1974-83, provided valuable support to the paedophile lobby as it pursued a string of legal and political campaigns designed to advance its twisted agenda. In 1975, for example, the NCCL conference was addressed by the PIE chairman, Keith Hose. Delegates passed a motion declaring that ‘awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual’.
In 1976, with Jack Dromey on its executive (he served from 1970-79), the NCCL filed a submission to a parliamentary committee claiming that a proposed Bill to protect children from sex abusers would lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’. ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage,’ it read. ‘The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.’

Two years later, in 1978, Harriet Harman, then a newly qualified solicitor, became the NCCL’s legal officer. She promptly wrote its official response to Parliament’s Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography.

Her letter claimed that such a law would ‘increase censorship’, and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered. ‘Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,’ she wrote.

Such statements, from officials in what was (and is) a respected human rights organisation, may go some way towards explaining how the Labour-run Home Office of the era might have allowed public grants to be directed towards the PIE.

The NCCL presided over by Harman, Hewitt, Hodge and Dromey had, after all, helped foster an environment where woolly liberalism trumped child protection. To many on the Left, promoting the ‘rights’ of paedophiles came to be regarded as a legitimate act of political subversion.
Sources close to the Home Office investigation, which was announced this week, say the whistle-blower who sparked it first came forward in the late Seventies. However, his concerns were ignored by officials working for Labour Home Secretary Merlyn Rees…
The civil servant suspected of approving the Voluntary Services Unit grants to the Paedophile Information Exchange in the Seventies died in 2006. Officials are now trying to establish the nature of this man’s relationship with the late Steven Adrian Smith, a former chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange who was employed as a security guard in the basement of the Home Office during the same era. If the two men were working in cahoots, it will surely fuel suspicions that an establishment paedophile ring had been allowed to take root in the department.
After all, it emerged earlier this year that Geoffrey Dickens, a Tory MP who campaigned against paedophilia, had approached the then Home Secretary Leon Brittan in 1983 with allegations concerning widespread abuse of children, some of it by prominent individuals, in children’s care homes. Nothing appears ever to have come of Dickens’s claims.
As for the Paedophile Information Exchange, its fortunes began to wane in 1981 when secretary Tom O’Carroll, a press officer for the Open University, was jailed for conspiring to corrupt public morals by publishing ‘contact’ advertisements (which put readers in touch with vendors of child porn) in an edition of The Magpie. Even after O’Carroll’s fall from grace, Patricia Hewitt was willing to stick up for the organisation.
In a 1982 essay entitled The Police And Civil Liberties, she offered a thundering critique of his trial. ‘Conspiring to corrupt public morals is an offence incapable of definition or precise proof,’ she wrote, arguing that O’Carroll’s involvement in distributing child porn had ‘overshadowed the deplorable nature of the conspiracy charge used by the prosecution’…
PIE disbanded in 1984… The ensuing years saw its reputation permanently sunk, following the convictions of dozens of prominent members for child sex offences. Among them was Charles Napier, its treasurer, who was jailed in 1995 for indecently assaulting a 14-year-old boy. Also disgraced was Peter Righton, a key government adviser on children’s homes, and a PIE founder, who was fined in 1992 for possessing child porn. He died in 2006, never prosecuted for abusing boys in his care, though he openly admitted doing so.
As for Harman, Hewitt and Dromey, (and Hodge) they went on to climb successfully the greasy ladder of politics. Despite the public revulsion against paedophilia, none of the trio would ever properly apologise for the NCCL’s historic links to the Paedophile Information Exchange. Indeed, a spokesman for Harman said yesterday that despite her employment by the NCCL during its formal affiliation, ‘the very suggestion that Harriet was in any way supportive of the PIE or its aims is untrue and misleading’.”

A bill ‘which sought to ban child pornography’ would ‘increase censorship’, Harriet? As opposed to protecting that child from perverts? ‘A pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent?’ A PORNOGRAPHIC picture? What act of pornography did you envisage our children being called on to perform that might not induce suffering?
‘Our amendment places the onus of proof on the prosecution to show that the child was actually harmed,’ said Harriet. Was she then prepared to argue that ‘the onus of proof’ should be placed upon the child itself?
What do you think, ladies and gents? Was Harriet ‘supportive of the PIE’ back then? I think she might have been, don’t you? It’s not for nothing that she’s known as the Queen of Political Correctness.
The Christian Voice was saying much the same thing as Guy Adams says here six and a half years ago.

On 20 June 2007, their blog reported thus:

“When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a gay liberation front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham.
NCCL people were earlier involved in keeping the name of an NCCL council-member, Jonathan Walters, out of The People newspaper when it ran an exposé of Paedophile Action for Liberation, of which he was secretary, in 1975. The People still ran the story, but Walters was not named.
Even more extraordinary is the fact that a current Cabinet Minister was running the National Council of Civil Liberties at the time all this was going on. The Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt MP, Secretary of State for Health, became General Secretary of NCCL in 1974. the very next year, 1975, NCCL invited the Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation to affiliate.
In the year after, 1976, the now-notorious paedophile Tom O’Carroll was invited to address the NCCL conference, which promptly voted to ‘deplore’ the use of chemical castration treatments for paedophiles.
Also in 1975, Patricia Hewitt joined the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, as a ‘straight’, in the same year that Keith Hose of the Paedophile Information Exchange addressed its second annual conference. Hose moved a motion of censure on the conference organising committee for ‘relegating paedophilia to ancillary status in conference.’ The motion was seconded by Trevor Locke, who just happened to be a member of the Executive Council of the NCCL.
‘An awareness and acceptance of the sexuality of children is an essential part of the liberation of the young homosexual,’  the motion went on. It was duly passed.

Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its executive committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made.

NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O’Carroll. and of course Walters and Locke were on the executive.
Stephen Green, National Director of Christian Voice, commented: ‘It is timely that the ghosts of the 1970’s past should come back to haunt these three leading Labour Party politicians.
Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt were in their mid or late twenties at the time, but that cannot really excuse the way NCCL came to regard paedophiles as an oppressed minority whose civil liberties needed to be fought for. All three of them really need to explain why they were so friendly toward so many… homosexual paedophiles in their youth. Why did they allow the NCCL gay rights sub-committee to be stuffed with them? Why were they happy to work with paedophilia supporters on the NCCL executive?”

On 20 May 2008, Leo McKinstry spilled the beans on his former boss in The Daily Mail:

“For decades, feminist zealots have told us that family structure is irrelevant, fathers are unnecessary for child-rearing and marriage is outdated. These views have had a disastrous influence, encouraging the state to preside over the breakdown in the traditional family. The results are everywhere, in crime, in benefits dependency, poverty and the rising costs to public services.
Yet, amid all this wreckage, hardliners still cling to their dogma. And none is more hard line than the High Priestess of British feminism, Harriet Harman. In an extraordinary interview published yesterday, she declared marriage was ‘irrelevant’ to public policy and described high rates of separation as a ‘positive development’, as it reflected ‘greater choice’ for couples – never mind the children… She was preaching this dangerous gospel of feminist fascism when she was first elected to Parliament in 1982.
When I came to work for her as a parliamentary aide in the early Nineties, Harman was questioning whether fathers were necessary at all. In her 26 years as MP, she appears to have learnt nothing from representing the poor South London constituency of Camberwell and Peckham. It not only has one of the highest rates of lone parenthood in the country, but is also one of the most deprived and crime-ridden areas in Britain. Yet in Harriet Harman’s mind, these two points are not connected.
As a naive young Ulsterman, hailing from a middle-class, two-parent home in Belfast, I was shocked at the complete absence of responsible fathers in the big housing estates that dominated the constituency. Yet this wilful creation of fractured society in her own midst did not bother Harriet.
‘Families come in all shapes and sizes’, has long been one of the favourite mantras of the Left. Research studies have shown, however, that children do better when raised in married families… Research, concluded that a stable background means you are less likely to be out of work, live off the State, become single parents or even smoke. Children of married parents do better in exams, according to other studies, and are less likely to have mental difficulties.
The Commons Home Affairs Committee has shown that levels of family breakdown among the black community are propelling teenagers into a life of crime. This was all too evident in Peckham’s phenomenal caseload, arising from an army of constituents who were reliant on the state for all their needs…
When I first took up the post, many friends in the Labour party told me I was an idiot to do so. She had a tyrannical reputation, notorious for her unreasonable demands and hectoring manner… There was often an air of chaos about her management, she often struggled to remain on top of her paperwork. And for someone in the front line of politics, Harman could be strangely ill-informed about current affairs and I would have to brief her strenuously for appearances on BBC Question Time, trying to ensure, for instance, that she remembered the names of key players in the Middle East peace process.
She could also be odd about money. At one stage she decided to employ a media negotiator to enhance her earnings from routine broadcast appearances, unheard of in Whitehall. It was a tactic that backfired when an outraged ITV company leaked to the Press her substantial demand for a fee…
I can now see what aggravates so many people about her: the politically correct condescension; smug self-certainty despite a record of incompetence; the whiff of born-to-rule arrogance; the attachment to the shibboleths of multiculturalism and feminism. Harman is the embodiment of so much that is wrong with New Labour. Born into affluent privilege herself, Harman is that classic socialist type that regards the robust British working class with suspicion…
Few figures in modern politics have enjoyed greater privilege than Harman. Her father was a Harley Street surgeon, her uncle the Earl of Longford. She was educated at the exclusive St Paul’s Girls’ School, before going on to York University and legal training. And like so many of the New Labour elite, she has never had a real job…
Before she entered Parliament, she worked as the legal officer for the radical pressure group, the National Council for Civil Liberties.
Further hypocrisy comes in the way she is raising her family, Harman’s attachment to the socialist ideal of comprehensive education clearly does not extend to her own life. She sent one of her sons to a grant-maintained school, another to a selective grammar, reinforcing the belief that too many Labour politicians refuse to practise what they preach.
Living in the leafy enclave of Dulwich, Harman’s detachment from her constituents’ lives was further reflected when she wore a stab-proof vest for a tour of Peckham, even though she was escorted by three police officers…
In 11 years of Labour rule she has no significant achievements to her name. She was sacked from the Cabinet by Blair in 1998 for making a hash of the policy of welfare reform. Since then she has used a succession of jobs, first Solicitor-General and now Minister for Equalities and Leader of the Commons as a platform to propound her dated brand of feminism.
Her mix of incompetence and cash problems was again demonstrated when she was embroiled in the Donorgate row recently, having accepted money for her Deputy Leadership bid without checking the source and then failing to make a proper declaration to the Electoral Commission…
Harman is fond of talking about equality, but her policies move in precisely the opposite direction. So she has called for the introduction of US-style positive discrimination for job candidates, where female and ethnic minority candidates are favoured over white males. This is in direct contradiction of equal opportunities. Nothing could be more unjust, patronising or discriminatory than awarding jobs on the basis of skin colour or gender. The same is true of her scheme to promote all-black shortlists in elections to increase the number of non-white MPs.
But then Harman has never had time for the British public, preferring to patronise rather than listen. She wants to shape society instead of serving its genuine needs. Her entire career, based on the elitist belief that she knows best, represents a betrayal of the traditional working class, the very people Labour was founded to represent.”

Harman has a deal of form in the marriage-wrecking, absent-dad-is-best book. As long ago as 1990, she co-authored a report entitled ‘The Family Way,’ which criticised the family unit and mothers who stay at home. In fact the booklet went so far as to wonder whether ‘the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion.’ Erin Pizzey described the work as a ‘staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.’
So why does Harman hate marriage? Perhaps because she is a member of a New World Order elite that despises the British working-classes and wants them gone. As stated in the previous essay, she is massively well-connected, being closely related to a Prime Minister, a Chancellor of the Exchequer and various other Lords and Ladies.
In 2001, Tony Blair appointed the paedophile enabler Solicitor General. She was, therefore, the country’s leading lawyer at that time. This position doesn’t seem to have imbued her with much of a sense of legal rectitude. Her sister, Sarah, also a legal eagle, was caught passing confidential papers to her and was, subsequently, found guilty of ‘conduct unbefitting a solicitor’ and forced to resign.
In 2003, Harman was fined £400 and banned from driving for seven days after being convicted of driving at 99 mph.
It was also reported that, in January 2004, caught smoking marijuana, her son had not been expelled from his halls of residence in accordance with the University of Warwick’s policy. The media contrasted his treatment with that of a fellow first-year, who had died on the way home after suffering the usual punishment, getting lost, and wandering on to some train tracks.
In 2007, Harman was issued with a £60 fixed penalty notice and given three penalty points on her license for driving at 50 mph on a stretch of road with a 40 mph limit.

Of Harman’s decision to send her son to the grant-maintained London Oratory, (where Tony Blair sent his sons) the black MP, Diane Abbot, said this:

“She made the Labour Party look as though we say one thing and do another”.

Abbot would later refrain from sending her own son to the local Comprehensive, preferring instead to enrol him at an elite Grammar, some way away from all the nasty gun-toters.
I met Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey in a late night drinking den once.
She was thrusting her bosom out, hands on hips and posing coquettishly. I remember her insisting that my pal and I DID know who she was. (I knew who she was all right but I was pretending not to)
Dromey, squirt-like, was trying to hide under the table and, very definitely, did not like his wife sharing herself with two proper chaps. After a while he got brave enough to cheep something along the lines of:

“We should be getting home, Harriet”.

Which, I have to admit, is exactly what I think now. They, along with a good many others, should be on their way back to the infernal regions.
I hope you noticed this.
‘In the 1970s ‘The PIE was… being picketed by the National Front.’ That’s who you DIDN’T vote for forty years ago. That’s who you didn’t vote for thirty, twenty or ten years ago either.
The Harmans, the Dromeys, the Hewitts, the Hodges and the Paedophile Information Exchange types told you that those who identified with the National Front were the bad guys and they were the good. You believed them. You voted for those who told you such scarcely credible lies. You kept on voting for them. Is it any wonder that society is as it is now when such people were allowed to run it?
Whatever you do, ladies and gentlemen, don’t for one moment absolve yourselves of the almighty blame you must justly shoulder for the moral deterioration of our society.
You chose evil.
You got it.

Margaret Hodge was Islington’s radical feminist council leader between 1982 and 1992.
She flew the red flag from atop the town hall and earned her council the tabloid nickname ‘the Socialist Republic of Islington.’ 
During her period in charge, Islington schools put boys at the back of the class room during maths lessons in order to raise the girls’ standards, grants were given to pro-gay and lesbian groups and the council was committed to a homosexual employment policy. At the same time the council spent heavily and made Islington one of the most indebted councils in the UK.
There was one report, which Hodge claimed was untrue, that she had forbidden the singing of Baa Baa Black Sheep in council nurseries because it had racist implications. Another report stated that musical chairs was also on her hit list as, according to the Gospel of Hodge, it encouraged aggressive behaviour. She is also reputed to have called for a ban on skipping ropes and see-saws.
Oh, and at least 26 children were sexually abused whilst in the care of Hodge’s Islington council and she did her level best to cover up the whole affair. Grudgingly, she finally admitted:

“As far as services for children are concerned, we failed. I accept responsibility”.

An official inquiry into the desperate state of Islington Council under Hodge’s leadership described the children’s department as ‘paralysed by equal opportunity and race issues.’

Here’s what Paul Waugh, the Deputy Political Editor of The Independent had to say about Hodge in November 2003:

“Demetrious Panton, 35, Douglas Fitch, 28, and Yvonne Williams, 40… were subjected to abuse at the hands of different paedophiles in Islington children’s homes… Ms Williams said: ‘For the sake of all the children she did wrong by… it’s high time she resigned’…

The Islington child abuse scandal has dogged her since 1992 when the London Evening Standard exposed how, for two decades, children in the borough’s care homes were molested, driven into prostitution and raped by people in positions of trust. Mrs. Hodge initially derided the reports as ‘gutter journalism’…

Mrs Hodge made her political reputation at Islington, where she was leader for 10 years from 1982… She was a close neighbour of Tony Blair. Her husband, Henry Hodge, was a solicitor who gave Cherie Blair her first brief as a barrister.”

Another of Hodge’s husbands married the former wife of Jack Straw. Once upon a time it would have been called incestuous. These days it’s more likely to be described as networking.
At the same time as she was preaching Marx to the multitude, Hypocrite Hodge was practicing something rather different. Against Labour Party policy she saw to it that her own children were educated in private schools. Harriet Harman would do the self-same thing a decade or so later.

Margaret Hodge’s family company pays just 0.01pc tax on £2.1bn of business generated in the UK. Here are a couple of clues as to why ‘one of the fiercest critics of tax avoidance by companies such asStarbucks, Google and Amazon’ gets away with such mind-boggling hypocrisy.
Firstly, Margaret Hodge is a foreigner. She’s Egyptian. Generally, foreigners give much less of a damn for our British sense of fair play, straight-dealing, moral code and laws, than we do.
Secondly, Hodge is her married name. The MP for Barking and Chairperson of the Public Accounts Committee, was born Margaret Oppenheimer. She is, as you might imagine, Jewish.

As for Patricia Hewitt, Blair’s Trade and Industry Secretary, (she became Health Secretary in 2005) the oh-so-PC and caring New Labour bigwig said this of the invasion of Iraq:

“This is about building a new civil society in Iraq after 35 years when we know women were suppressed, and ensuring women have a voice in Iraq.”

Saddam’s Iraqi society was, whatever its manifest faults, the most secular Arab state in the region and women were far more liberated there than elsewhere. Now he’s gone women’s rights have all but disappeared. The US-appointed Iraqi Governing Council has removed many of the rights that Iraqi women once had on divorce, marriage, inheritance and child custody. In these matters, Koranic law now takes precedence.
If Hewitt didn’t know this outcome was likely when she was pontificating on the lovely, fluffy civil libertarian prospects of Iraqi women, she should have done.
One last thing:
Remember Leon Brittan, the Home Secretary whom Geoffrey Dickens approached with ‘allegations concerning widespread abuse of children, some of it by prominent individuals, in children’s care homes?’ Remember how ‘nothing’ appear(ed) ever to have come of Dickens’s claims? (He presented Brittan with a second dossier in 1984)
Well, a girlfriend of mine, who worked for Brittan’s fellow Cabinet Minister, Sir Keith Joseph, once told me that, graffiti in the ladies’ lavatory at that time (around the same time Dickens came to him with the paedophile allegations), said this:

“Leon Brittan is a paedophile.”

She isn’t the type of woman to make something like that up. That’s not to say Margaret Thatcher’s Home Secretary is a pervert. But that a lady in the employ of Her Majesty’s government wrote what she wrote on the wall of the ladies’ loo at that time, for whatever reason, is a definite.
On 28 January 2013, the Justice Denied blog said this:

“Leon Brittan first named in the North Wales Child Abuse Scandal has come up again in the Elm Guest House Scandal… I can confirm that documents seized under warrant by members of the Operation Fairbank police investigation team (now Operation Fernbridge) as evidence in the Elm Guest House paedophile scandal (1979-1982) allege that the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, later Home Secretary,and current Trade advisor to this Coalition Government, Leon Brittan was a regular visitor to the guest house where the abuse of young boys trafficked in from local care homes took place

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *