Political prisoner, activist, journalist, hymn-writer, emerging thinktanker, aspiring novelist, "tribal elder", 2019 parliamentary candidate for North West Durham, Shadow Leader of the Opposition, "Speedboat", "The Cockroach", eagerly awaiting the second (or possibly third) attempt to murder me.
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
Where's The Story?
"All Paul Staines could do was leak it to the old media."
True enough.
But then, what about The Daily Telegraph's breaking of the story about Harriet Harman's links to the old Paedophile Information Exchange and Paedophile Action for Liberation?
No, but Martin read about it on here, emailed me saying that he'd been working on the story for years, and we've been in touch ever since.
Astonishing that this has actually been publihsed in the biggest-selling broadsheet and then ... nothing! No one denies it. Yet no one seems to care, either. Mind-boggling.
Oh, well, everyone knew about Jonathan King for years but never saw fit to publish anything. So getting into print at all is an achievement, I suppose.
I read the story - it's pretty thin stuff. It says Harman briefed that "“Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations." Doesn't sound too bad to me.
Her spokesman does defend it, in the same article.
“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”
I'm a journalist and I confirm that David's ferreting out of this story has made quite a storm. Some very big people have been trying to cope with the damage. It's all part of the political revolution that David has sparked.
The briefing quoted in the Telegraph appears to be arguing that photos of naked children should not automatically be considered "indecent". Since there are photos in my family's possession of me playing naked on a beach aged about 2, which were not taken for sexual gratification and have never been used as such, this seems to me to be a sensible position.
I'd really like to see the full briefing, because the parts selectively quoted in the Telegraph article don't look bad at all, but the whole thing is written in an outraged tone. I appreciate that the Telegraph wouldn't be able to publish the whole thing, but perhaps you could - maybe you could email your friend Martin Beckford and ask him to send it to you. As things stand, there is no smoking gun, and it's no surprise that Harman hasn't got into public hot water about this. Googling to find more than the Telegraph article and your blog draws a blank. But if you could publish the full evidence of her paedophile ties on your blog, you would be performing a vital public service.
Equally, if it turns out that there isn't any more than Martin Beckford has already published, perhaps we can conclude that there's nothing to the story in the first place.
Anonymous, if only! See today's post on the BBC as to why this hasn't happened.
Duncan, why would the Telegraph have run anything so tame? There must be more to this. As, indeed, there is.
Mundic, I have blogged about this on various occasions. The NCCL, run by Harman and Patricia Hewitt (subsequently responsible for every social worker in England), was hand in glove with the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which had the same address, committee, the works as the Paedophile Information Exchange.
And you are all protesting, far, far, far too much about this "non-story"...
Did you give that to them?
ReplyDeleteNo, but Martin read about it on here, emailed me saying that he'd been working on the story for years, and we've been in touch ever since.
ReplyDeleteAstonishing that this has actually been publihsed in the biggest-selling broadsheet and then ... nothing! No one denies it. Yet no one seems to care, either. Mind-boggling.
For some reason, that story didn't turn out to have any legs.
ReplyDeleteYet no one denies it.
ReplyDeleteOh, well, everyone knew about Jonathan King for years but never saw fit to publish anything. So getting into print at all is an achievement, I suppose.
It may grow legs if she ever tries for Leader.
People used to come on here saying she'd sue you if anyone cared about you.
ReplyDeleteBut they don't say that now that it's been in the Telegraph and no libel writ has been issued, nor will it be.
ReplyDeleteI read the story - it's pretty thin stuff. It says Harman briefed that "“Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations." Doesn't sound too bad to me.
ReplyDeleteIt's only the tip of the iceberg.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I dare her to defend even that now.
Her spokesman does defend it, in the same article.
ReplyDelete“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”
Again, sounds fair enough to me. Non-story.
That doesn't defend exactly what she said at the time. "14 (or, arguably, 16)"?
ReplyDeleteNor does it defend her ties to the PIE and to PAL. Of which, expect to hear a lot more should she ever seek the top job.
If, that is, the BBC in particular condescends to report the published facts of the matter.
I'm a journalist and I confirm that David's ferreting out of this story has made quite a storm. Some very big people have been trying to cope with the damage. It's all part of the political revolution that David has sparked.
ReplyDeleteThe briefing quoted in the Telegraph appears to be arguing that photos of naked children should not automatically be considered "indecent". Since there are photos in my family's possession of me playing naked on a beach aged about 2, which were not taken for sexual gratification and have never been used as such, this seems to me to be a sensible position.
ReplyDeleteI'd really like to see the full briefing, because the parts selectively quoted in the Telegraph article don't look bad at all, but the whole thing is written in an outraged tone. I appreciate that the Telegraph wouldn't be able to publish the whole thing, but perhaps you could - maybe you could email your friend Martin Beckford and ask him to send it to you. As things stand, there is no smoking gun, and it's no surprise that Harman hasn't got into public hot water about this. Googling to find more than the Telegraph article and your blog draws a blank. But if you could publish the full evidence of her paedophile ties on your blog, you would be performing a vital public service.
ReplyDeleteEqually, if it turns out that there isn't any more than Martin Beckford has already published, perhaps we can conclude that there's nothing to the story in the first place.
Anonymous, if only! See today's post on the BBC as to why this hasn't happened.
ReplyDeleteDuncan, why would the Telegraph have run anything so tame? There must be more to this. As, indeed, there is.
Mundic, I have blogged about this on various occasions. The NCCL, run by Harman and Patricia Hewitt (subsequently responsible for every social worker in England), was hand in glove with the Campaign for Homosexual Equality, which had the same address, committee, the works as the Paedophile Information Exchange.
And you are all protesting, far, far, far too much about this "non-story"...