Wednesday, 24 September 2008

Hatty For Leader?

I can laugh, so that's what I'm doing. Remnant Labourites reading this should weep buckets. But no one should be remotely surprised that Jon Cruddas was denied the Deputy Leadership by this shamelessly dishonest splitting of the anti-war majority vote. After all, Harman was the candidate of the most hardline neocons in the House of Commons, Gisela Stuart and Denis MacShane. Hers was a Straussian deception of the common herd. Are we on the verge of another one?

Furthermore, consider how the Tories - little more than an upmarket Darby and Joan Club - mysteriously managed to find over a quarter of a million people to vote in their Leadership Election, of whom more than two thirds voted for the neocon, socially super-liberal, achingly posh candidate. Who were they? Where were they? Where had they been for the previous dozen years? And where are they now? Harman's implausible vote for Labour Deputy Leader was comparable: the whole thing stank, and stinks.

Meanwhile, to matters historical, yet very contemporary: the old Paedophile Information Exchange was hand in glove with the old Campaign for Homosexual Equality (they were practically a single organisation - same address, same committee, the works), which in turn was hand in glove with the old National Council for Civil Liberties in the Hatty and Patty days. (Patty, please note, is now a key anti-Brown conspirator, having previously had overall responsibility for every social worker in England.)

This is all very well-researched and well-documented; indeed, so different were attitudes within the real ruling class at the time (I mean to publicising these views, not to the views as such, which have not changed one jot) that no secret seems to have been made of these connections.

The people who have done all the relevant (painstaking) research have of course been short of a hearing in more recent years. But with Hatty's new-found eminence, they are certainly going to get a hearing now. Aren't they?

They're on the case, so watch this space...


  1. "The people who have done all the relevant (painstaking) research have of course been short of a hearing in more recent years. But with Hatty's new-found eminence, they are certainly going to get a hearing now. Aren't they?"

    I'm confused. You seem to be complaining that this thepry isn't getting a runout, and that the mainstream media is somehow suppressing it. You've got a blog -publicise it. Loads of internet sites promote fringe ideas. That's oart of what they do. So go on - tell us what this wonderful work shows

    Or is it actually not that strong, and are you not that confident you won't get sued?

  2. Yawn. You wrote almost this exact same post about a year ago. Either something is here, or it isn't. If it is, and it is so painstakingly researched, then tell us here. If not, then just stop going on about it

  3. On CHE's website it says they were founded in 69 - it and PIE were not organisationally the same, as I understand it, for the CHE still exists. PIE obviously failed to have any impact in terms of gaining acceptance for child abuse - certainly, i've never heard anyone in the LGBT community express support for such sickening cruelty.

    I doubt there's any killer evidence that Hatty or Patty were at all supportive of child molestors - surely we'd have heard a lot more about it if they'd written in support of rape and abuse?

  4. Peter Hitchens has campaigned for years for various reductions in and de facto abolitions of the age of consent. He si by no means alone.

    Homosexual male culture seems to be largely defined by depictiosn of sex between men and adolescent boys, and these have become mainstream through such things as Queer As Folk, Shameless and Clapham Junction.

    The CHE and the PIE were very closely interlinked, and the former was still defending the latter long after its exposure.

    The Harman stuff is no in the hands of Fleet Street's finest. If she stands for Leader, it will all be brought out. I now know this for a fact.

  5. Yoy haven't answered the previous comments - if you know this, why not publicise it? Unless you don't think it reaally stands up, and are afraid of being sued.

  6. There was certainly some evidence of infiltration of early gay rights movements by paedophile advocates, which was made easier by the legal situation at the time and the shockingly low level of awareness about child abuse. It makes a lot more sense to look at what contemporary gay rights advocates such as Stonewall say: which is firmly in support of an equal age of consent at 16, and support for civil partnerships. I think you have a rather strange and warped view of gay people - do you actually know any?

  7. Lots, Merseymike.

    But the idea that an inclination towards homosexual acts constitutes an identity comparable to sex, ethnicity or class is not yet two generations old, having been invented in urban, coastal American centres of pederasty (such as the Stonewall Inn) in the early Seventies.

    So it postdates by several years our own humane and necessary decriminalisation of male homosexual acts between consenting adults in private. (Cure it by sending them to prison? Whose bright idea was that?)

    Anonymous, it's all now in the hands of people with potential audiences of which I can but dream.

    And she knows it.

  8. "Anonymous, it's all now in the hands of people with potential audiences of which I can but dream.

    And she knows it."

    Well I'm sure she's shaking in her boots. But can you explain why it being about to be published in the Guardian, say, precludes you *also* writing about it? I mean, trumping the nationals to such a scoop - it could make your reputation!

    Unless of course, you don't actually know for a fact it is true, and are keeping quiet for fear of being sued.

  9. This blog is really about comment - I wouldn't do a "scoop" unless I absolutely had to.

    And this wouldn't be one, anyway. Everyone who's anyone already knows it, and letters setting it out in detail have been publihsed in the past, without recrimination, in, among other places, the Guardian.

  10. Talking of being sued, did you really mean to write that Peter Hitchens has been campaigning for reductions in and abolitions of the age of consent?

    I mean, you might be right, but I'd find it so hard to believe as to require at least some supporting evidence.

    Dare I suggest that you meant to name a different Peter, though one who also has a two-syllable surname with a "ch" sound in the middle?

  11. Thank you for that.

    Hitchens is surprisingly nice about Tatchell, who has been selected as the Green candidate for one of the seats in Oxford, where Hitchens lives.

    Surely not...?