The Labour Party has no leg to stand on writ paedophila

Some context for the State Department

By Damocles561

In the past year the British government has been engaged in a campaign against online freedoms. This began with the implementation of the Online Safety Act – which was introduced by the Tories – but has ramped up hugely this year. The government has threatened to ban X, and is now consulting on a social media ban for under 16s, the recommendation of which is almost certain to be to go ahead with it. Perhaps most sinister of all is the news that a VPN ban is now also on the table. Many of these clampdowns are being justified on the safety of children, indeed, Labour ministers are even accusing opponents of this new authoritarian turn as being on the side of sexual predators.

The height of irony that this is a British government led by Keir Starmer. Keir Starmer of the Labour Party, which has in the last month alone has seen two scandals about councillors charged for paedophilia, Matthew Doyle and Liron Woodcock-Velleman both with connections to the dominant national right-wing faction of the party.

I have documented at great length for this publication just how many Labour councillors and MPs have been charged for CSE since 1975 (the linked article documents 61 individuals) and demonstrated how this massively exceeds the number for the other parties. This, alongside the Labour Party’s enmeshment with Pakistani grooming gangs across the country, should be used by the State Department and other entities within the Trump administration, and by Elon Musk, to go on the offensive.

There is much, much more to this story. I have spent much of the last six months digging through court records and speaking to figures in local government to get a grasp on how deep the connections are, the fruits of which I hope to present at a later time. For now we will have to rely on what is in the public domain to expose the Labour party’s hypocrisy to an international audience. Everybody must understand how ludicrous it is for any representative of the Labour party to grandstand about the safety of children.

To help the audience understand just how deep this rot goes on the British Left, I’ve produced a short primer on the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), an organisation which many British readers will have heard of. In the writing of this article, I approached Richard Scorer, a lawyer who represented victims of the ‘black-cab rapist’ John Worboys. Scorer has dedicated his career to helping victims of CSE. After reading my work he had the following to say:

“This is very important work. Many of those involved in NCCL in this period went on to senior roles in politics and elsewhere. NCCL’s scandalous relationship with PIE needs to be exposed, not least because it holds valuable lessons for today about how sex offenders and their supporters can infiltrate supposedly reputable human rights organisations. I commend the research undertaken here and hope everyone will read it”.

The Paedophile Information Exchange, and the National Council for Civil Liberties

In the mid-1970s, the innocuously named National Council for Civil Liberties occupied a position of considerable influence in British public life. The NCCL presented itself as a guardian of civil and human rights, drawing into its ranks a cadre of young, ambitious talents already grasping for high office in the Labour Party. Patricia Hewitt served as general secretary of the NCCL from 1974 to 1983; Jack Dromey sat for many years on its executive committee, and his wife, Harriet Harman, assumed the role of legal officer in 1978.

Archival records show that during this period the NCCL entertained a formal affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange.

PIE, established in 1975, styled itself a lobby group dedicated to securing the “human rights” of adults sexually attracted to children. Its doctrine held that such relations were not only harmless but a matter of civil liberty for both the child and the adult.

In 1975 PIE applied for, and duly received, affiliate status within the NCCL, remitting the modest subscription of £15. One would assume that such an organisation required aliases, passwords and secret handshakes. One would be wrong. Your local paedo could mail his 15 quid to a central London address under his own name with no concern or shame and walk the long way home via the playground; future leaders of the Labour party not remotely inclined to report him to the police. On the contrary, they were there to advocate for his rights as a sexual minority in Britain.

In a video produced by the BBC, two members of PIE, on camera with their faces fully displayed, make the case that children and adults have a natural right to engage in what they variously refer to as “sex’ or “sexual activity”, never rape or abuse.

Contemporary documents record direct engagement between NCCL staff, including Hewitt and Dromey, and PIE representatives on matters political and legal. PIE contrived to align itself with the prevailing currents of sexual liberation and gay rights, casting itself as yet another oppressed minority in need of enlightened defence. The NCCL obliged: it furnished legal assistance during police inquiries and lodged formal complaints with the Press Council whenever media coverage ventured into criticism.

The NCCL extended legal support to child sex offenders, on the ingenious premise that paedophiles constituted an oppressed sexual minority entitled to the full panoply of civil rights.

By 1976 the NCCL had progressed to formal submissions to Parliament. These recommended reducing the age of sexual consent to fourteen, and further proposed that sexual activity with children of ten years or older should be lawful provided “consent was genuinely given and the child understood the nature of the act.”

The same documents advocated legalising incest between “mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.” At the NCCL’s annual general meeting that year, a motion jointly proposed by PIE co-founder Keith Hose and NCCL employee Nettie Pollard condemned the “continued harassment” of PIE. NCCL guidance of the era adopted PIE’s contention that prosecuting paedophiles might inflict greater harm upon the children concerned than the acts themselves.

Some excerpts from NCCL’s 1976 submission to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, titled Sexual Offences: Evidence to the Criminal Law Revision Committee:

“Although in the past it was accepted that ecclesiastical laws and, subsequently, civil laws could properly enforce a moral code, in more recent times the feeling has been growing that Acts of Parliament should not, and cannot, control the moral side of our lives.”

“The present legal penalties are too high and reinforce the misinformation and prejudice. The duty of the court should be to inquire into all the relevant circumstances with the intention, not of meting out severe punishment, but of determining the best solution in the interests of both child and paedophile.”

“Some doctors support the present age of consent in the belief that the cervix is more liable to damage by sexual intercourse at 14 than at 16 but this is disputed by other medical experts and the evidence either way is far from convincing.”

“The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”

“The Criminal Law Commission should be prepared to accept the evidence from follow-up research on child ‘victims’ which show there is little subsequent effect after a child has been ‘molested’.”

“Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.”

In 1978 Harriet Harman, in her capacity as NCCL legal officer, submitted a briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill, a measure designed to prohibit child pornography. The paper argued that images of naked children should qualify as pornographic only where the child had demonstrably suffered, and recommended that seized images be returned to their owners unless required as trial evidence.

To state the matter with total clarity: the document, endorsed by Harman, maintained that naked photographs of children ought to be categorised as perfectly legal, absent visible evidence of active suffering of the child in the image itself, thus rendering the possession of those images perfectly legal.

Contemporaneously, the NCCL prepared a response to a government working paper, urging the legalisation of incest amongst other things. It cited research purporting to show that many young people were “consenting or even the initiators” of sexual acts with adults.

The NCCL maintained close ties with figures associated with PIE publications. In 1980 the self-confessed paedophile Roger Moody issued Indecent Assault, acknowledging in the foreword the assistance of Nettie Pollard, who had reviewed the manuscript. Pollard received similar thanks in the foreword to PIE leader Tom O’Carroll’s Paedophilia: The Radical Case. Pollard remained on the NCCL staff into the 1990s.

In 1981, Tom O’Carroll finally attracted the attention of the law and was convicted of conspiring to corrupt public morals after police seized more than a quarter of a ton of indecent images, some depicting the sexual abuse of a one-year-old child. He received a paltry two-year prison sentence. The NCCL persisted in circulating briefing materials critical of the prosecution.

In 1982, Mike Morten, describing himself as “both a paedophile and gay,” published a letter in the NCCL magazine Rights, asserting that laws prohibiting sexual activity with children infringed his civil liberties. That same year, Harriet Harman was elected Member of Parliament for Camberwell and Peckham.

While the NCCL’s pet child sex offenders were going to jail, Harman, their staunch advocate, was going to Whitehall.

PIE disbanded formally in 1984, following the conviction of several of its leaders. In the decades thereafter numerous former members faced prosecution for sexual offences: Douglas Slade for historical abuse, David Joy for indecent assault, child rape, and possession of indecent images; Stephen Freeman for possessing making and distributing indecent images; Andrew Sadler for sexual corruption and sex with a minor; Morris Fraser, a co-founder, for sexual offences.

The historical record is unambiguous. Key figures within the NCCL - Hewitt, Harman, Dromey - occupied leadership positions throughout the period of formal affiliation and active collaboration with PIE. The organisation supplied legal support, parliamentary lobbying, and engagement with materials advancing PIE’s views on the age of consent, incest, and child sexual abuse imagery. Documents confirm that PIE members openly proclaimed sexual relations between children and adults to be harmless.

The Labour Party, ever eager to pose as the vigilant protector of children, might reflect upon this chapter with something approaching humility. The spectacle of former NCCL luminaries now advocating digital controls in the name of child protection is, one is tempted to say, a masterpiece of unintended comedy.