Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Dealing with allegations as to the past

To propose and debate astonishing propositions of law. Please stay polite and rational.

Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby dls » Tue Feb 25, 2014 7:14 pm

The Daily Mail is at it again - running a pretty damn vile campaign against Harriett Harman and her husband about the teh affiliation of the Pedophile Information Exchange to what was then the NCCL.

It is difficult to know who comes out worse. many many years ago, Richard Nixon was said to have asked an aide in his early political charge for the summit, to spread rumours that his opponent, a pig-farmer, was far too close to and friendly with his pigs. When the aide said there was no truth to it, Nixon was said to have replied 'Yes, but let's watch hims stand up and deny it.'

The DM has set similar (or perhaps lower) standards in its attack.

However, it is equally clear that HH has mishandled this very badly.
It is clear that at that time, the US equivalent was proud to take a stand for the least popular causes in Society. It accepted opprobrium and the shame of association with lost and desperate causes, wearing them as a badge of pride. My own, very dim and unreliable memory was that the involvement of PIE with NCCL was a bit of an homage not to pedophiles, but to their US heroes.

The association with PIE was known at the time, and indeed a PIE representative was allowed to speak at an NCCL event.

All that goes as to the NCCL, but not directly as to HH or to mr HH. I cannot disentangle any personal involvement on their part. I am content to believe that at no point would either of them had anything but revulsion towards pedophilia. She should have killed this from the start.
What might she have said? If true:
"I had no direct involvement with them either as affiliates to NCCL or otherwise. I made no decision which promoted their cause. I am sorry that I did not do more at the time to disassociate a reputable organisation from them."
If not true then a quiet resignation would be in order.

Her inability to utter the 's' word speaks loudly of the moral death of the Labour party, and why its continued acceptance of any of those in power in the Blair/Brown years will leave them, for me at least, political untouchables. She stands for everything which was bad about the Labour party, and her continued involvement is shameful, not least because she is so good for cynical press
profits,
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11487
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby Slartibartfast » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:32 pm

dls wrote:Her inability to utter the 's' word speaks loudly of the moral death of the Labour party


I largely agree, but she knows that if she apologises then the Mail will ask why she has not resigned, why hasn't Millipede sacked her, why the Police are not investigating her as an abettor of paedo-crime.

The whole thing is a sick game.
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby landlordnightmare » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:07 am

I heard a slightly more reasoned discussion on Radio 5 live this afternoon.

In my personal opinion this is clearly a targetted attack against HH and the labour party (hasten to add no support for either here) by the DM and she certainly has right to fight back.

Could the DM fall any lower in my opinion? - unlikely I feel - well they manged it. Have they just given me possibly the very slighlest piece a little bit of sympathy for HH?? - well I think they just did - and that was a difficult thing to make possible in the extreme - but they did!

Sorry - not good journalism at all IMHO.

Ho hum!
Note: I am not legally qualified, just been around a few blocks. The sorry cynic.
landlordnightmare
 
Posts: 2001
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 2:37 am

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 9:20 am

The fact that NCCL allowed such an onerous organisation as PIE to join it's ranks gave PIE a degree of credibility it didn't deserve. I heard on the media a number of apologists explaining how PIE had very little influence in NCCL. I find that irrelevant, as the main advantage to PIE, however little influence it had within NCCL, was the credibility it's affiliation gave that disgusting organisation. Harriet Harperson is, IMO, one of the most disgusting members of the Labour party still serving. Apart from her support of Tony Bliar, a war crime in itself, she was instrumental in implementing the introduction of legislation that made it possible for a person to commit a crime that it was impossible for him to know that he was, in fact, committing that crime. The first ever such situation I believe. She is a true political hypocrite of the first water.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 26, 2014 10:34 am

Can you clarify the second last sentence please? What legislation are you referring to?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18042
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:24 am

Sexual Offences Act 2003

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)A makes or promises payment for the sexual services of a prostitute (B),

(b)a third person (C) has engaged in exploitative conduct of a kind likely to induce or encourage B to provide the sexual services for which A has made or promised payment, and

(c)C engaged in that conduct for or in the expectation of gain for C or another person (apart from A or B).

(2)The following are irrelevant—

(a)where in the world the sexual services are to be provided and whether those services are provided,

(b)whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has engaged in exploitative conduct.


(3)C engages in exploitative conduct if—

(a)C uses force, threats (whether or not relating to violence) or any other form of coercion, or

(b)C practises any form of deception.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.


As you will be aware, prostitution is not illegal in the UK. So, a person could make a booking through an escort agency for a perfectly legal meting with a prostitute. Let's suppose there are two women on the site that attract our would be punter. One is free, willing, and likes the job. The other is indifferent to the job, but does the work to pay for her self medication which she couldn't afford otherwise. Her 'boyfriend' has encouraged her to take up the work saying he will buy her the smack she requires. So, the punter calls girl 1 and he commits no offence. If he calls number 2, then even though the escort agency's website makes it appear that girl 2 is eager and willing, he is up the creek. Even if the booking is made but the girl never gets to hear of the booking. If the police raid the agency and get the punter's details, perhaps because girl 2 has rolled over on her 'boyfriend' and they have a statement from her to the effect that he has encouraged her into prostitution.

At present there are no figures to suggest that such a thing is happening, but it is clear to me that it could. I'm sure that such bookings take place on a daily basis. And, how many cautions have been given out for this? If the punter got busted, I suspect that any lawyer could only recommend a caution be accepted, for there seems to be no room for manoeuvre in this. Even though it is a summary only offence (so no jury could express it's disgust at such a principle) it could be a potentially life ruining event for the punter.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:41 am

Which section is that?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18042
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 11:55 am

Oops! S. 53A
"I do not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death my right to be offended by it."
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 2976
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby Alexb123 » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:15 pm

Liberalism supporting Pedo's. I mentioned on this forum a few years ago the risk to children from gay PE teachers and was shotdown as a homophob. This to me was a very similar situation. Liberals being so misguided by their blind support of brown people (non-white) and gays that they cannot see the wood for the trees. CHILD PROTECTION COMES FIRST NO MATTER WHAT!!!
Alexb123
 
Posts: 847
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:04 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:24 pm

Is that the objective of the cited legislation, Alex?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18042
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Next

Return to Just Mooting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests