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.

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 12:59 pm

Well, we're drifting well off topic here maybe. But the association of homosexuality with paedophilia is a doubtful one. But when I hear he gay lobby talking of love when they want the right to marry I am reminded of the tremendous excesses that can be found within the homosexual 'community', as discovered while on Vice Squad, and on other duties and which bear no resemblance to any sort of love. While these excesses are no direct lead to paedophile activity, at least IMO, they may perhaps act in the same way as smoking cannabis can encourage acceptance of other self inflicted medications. Such is my belief.
"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: 3352
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 1:18 pm

Slightly back on topic, talk about being damned with faint praise...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26351199

Labour MP Dame Tessa Jowell has backed Harriet Harman after claims she did not try to expel a paedophile network from a civil rights group because "she didn't want to rock the boat".

Ms Harman, Labour's deputy leader, was legal officer at the National Council for Civil Liberties during the 1970s.

Paedophile Information Exchange founder Tom O'Carroll said she had not "done much" to oppose links with his group.

But Dame Tessa said Ms Harman had not "given any comfort" to it.


Well, that's nice to know. :roll:
"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: 3352
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby Slartibartfast » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:50 pm

shootist wrote:Sexual Offences Act 2003
(b)whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has engaged in exploitative conduct.

That standard had been in law at least 6 yrs prior to SOA -
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
"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 Slartibartfast » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:55 pm

shootist wrote:the main advantage to PIE, however little influence it had within NCCL, was the credibility it's affiliation gave that disgusting organisation


I agree, and so does HH. Unfortunately the militant paedo wing played a clever game of entryism in the 1970-80's, and managed to persuade some naive people that they were just a minority sexual persuasion. They clung to the coat-tails of the gay & lesbian liberation campaigners for a while, but eventually they were sussed-out and thrown-out.

I recall that some rather sordid corporal punishment fetishists managed to smuggle their way into Tory committees on law & order and education around that time (also now sussed-out and thrown-out).
"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 shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 6:59 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
shootist wrote:Sexual Offences Act 2003
(b)whether A is, or ought to be, aware that C has engaged in exploitative conduct.

That standard had been in law at least 6 yrs prior to SOA -
Protection from Harassment Act 1997

(1)A person must not pursue a course of conduct—
(a)which amounts to harassment of another, and
(b)which he knows or ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.



You missed a bit..
(2)For the purposes of this section, the person whose course of conduct is in question ought to know that it amounts to harassment of another if a reasonable person in possession of the same information would think the course of conduct amounted to harassment of the other

(3)Subsection (1) does not apply to a course of conduct if the person who pursued it shows—

(a)that it was pursued for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime,

(b)that it was pursued under any enactment or rule of law or to comply with any condition or requirement imposed by any person under any enactment, or

(c)that in the particular circumstances the pursuit of the course of conduct was reasonable.


So, there are several defence lines there that it would be possible to make and which may well succeed. The SOA has no such defence mechanism built in. So, not the same thing at all.
"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: 3352
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 26, 2014 7:12 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:I agree, and so does HH. Unfortunately the militant paedo wing played a clever game of entryism in the 1970-80's, and managed to persuade some naive people that they were just a minority sexual persuasion. They clung to the coat-tails of the gay & lesbian liberation campaigners for a while, but eventually they were sussed-out and thrown-out.


If I believe that paedophilia is (just :shock: ) a minority sexual persuasion, I hope to Christ that I'm right and not just naïve. And the fact remains the NCCL were 'persuaded' to accept, however briefly (a couple of years IIRC) the unacceptable. Should the deputy leader of a major political party really be so naïve? Or was it a case of supping with the devil to gain support? As for HH, well, she has now more than a little in common with Mandy Rice-Davies. (She would say that, wouldn't she.) She certainly hasn't said sorry.

Slartibartfast wrote:I recall that some rather sordid corporal punishment fetishists managed to smuggle their way into Tory committees on law & order and education around that time (also now sussed-out and thrown-out).


Hmmm... I don't recall that. The fact that they might have been in favour of corporal punishment doesn't alone make them fetishists. And people with such views are in direct conflict with the "Nothing bad must ever happen, even if it stops something worse" crowd.
"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: 3352
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Dealing with allegations as to the past

Postby Slartibartfast » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:14 pm

shootist wrote: the fact remains the NCCL were 'persuaded' to accept, however briefly (a couple of years IIRC) the unacceptable.

1978-83, according to wikipedia (which may or many not be reliable, there is an edit war underway with certain people trying to link this to Jimmy Savile, and to make HH personally responsible for every part of the NCCL/PIE connection).

shootist wrote: Should the deputy leader of a major political party really be so naïve? Or was it a case of supping with the devil to gain support?

Who was supping, and who was the devil? An interesting article here by a very well-informed writer (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 55610.html) describes how PIE subtly tried to infiltrate gay lib, drug legalisation, political parties, civil liberties and social work campaigns. For a couple of years they were on the brink of achieving 'protected minority' status. Until someone remembered they wanted to have sex with children...

Slartibartfast wrote:I recall that some rather sordid corporal punishment fetishists managed to smuggle their way into Tory committees on law & order and education around that time (also now sussed-out and thrown-out).

shootist wrote:Hmmm... I don't recall that. The fact that they might have been in favour of corporal punishment doesn't alone make them fetishists


Quite right, but don't kid yourself that it was all wholesome civic duty. Remember Harvey Proctor MP who loved to cane young rent boys? Michael Brown MP, who had to resign when he was caught taking his young boyfriend to Barbados? Michael Powell, Conservative mayor of Bridgend and a Tory candidate in two General Elections, jailed for 16,000 paedo-pics on his computer? Peter Stidworthy, Conservative councillor jailed for indecent assault on a schoolboy?

You might also like to study the history of the CHE (Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality, funded in 1975), eg this press report from April 2013 "Members of a Conservative party campaign group were “strongly recommended” to visit the guest house at the centre of a paedophile-ring investigation by police. Exaro can today reveal how the Conservative Group for Homosexual Equality (CGHE) sent a newsletter to its members in 1982 that endorsed Elm Guest House, in Barnes, south-west London." (http://www.exaronews.com/articles/4816/ ... aedo-probe)

I do not say that the Conservative party is especially riddled with paedo's. A quick google would find just as many Labour and Liberal equivalents to above. The point is that during the 70-80's we all underestimated how effectively these bastards were infiltrating 'the establishment'.
"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 Slartibartfast » Wed Feb 26, 2014 8:52 pm

HARRIET Harman and the Daily Mail are two sides of the same unbearable coin, experts have confirmed. Labour’s awful deputy leader is locked in a vicious paedo-smear battle with the insane newspaper which, according to millions of dreams, could destroy both of them utterly. But experts described the conflict as ‘fascinating’ because both organisms share the same brain.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 4022583995
"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 » Thu Feb 27, 2014 12:39 am

Slartibartfast wrote:HARRIET Harman and the Daily Mail are two sides of the same unbearable coin, experts have confirmed. Labour’s awful deputy leader is locked in a vicious paedo-smear battle with the insane newspaper which, according to millions of dreams, could destroy both of them utterly. But experts described the conflict as ‘fascinating’ because both organisms share the same brain.

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/soci ... 4022583995


from your article

He added: “It’s BBC1 v ITV. It’s Hitler v Stalin. It’s Piers Morgan v Jeremy Clarkson.


Well within 24 hours it appears one of those battles has been won! :D
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 Slartibartfast » Thu Feb 27, 2014 7:52 am

Before we take too much pleasure in the fall of Piers Morgan, remember this may result in him returning to UK...
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Just Mooting

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest