The Paedo-Files

The Don

Penultimate Amazing
The Don
Joined
Nov 27, 2002
Messages
39,527
Location
Sir Fynwy
Amid a media frenzy over Muslim Grooming Gangs and the Labour Party's failure to fix everything to the right wing's satisfaction in a few weeks, here's another story relating to potential child abuse.

The BBC has obtained a secret list of people (mostly men) who were part of an organisation which was seeking to legalise sex with children back in the 1970s and early 1980s and is leading with the following scare headline:

Men on secret 1970s pro-paedophile list could still work with children today​

Click to expand...
www.bbc.co.uk

Men on 1970s pro-paedophile list could still work with children today

A small number have been identified from a 300-strong group of adults who called for legal sex with children.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

This is absolutely true but, as the article goes on to point out

  • There's no evidence that any of the people on the list are guilty of abuse
  • There's no evidence that these people are working with children
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Not that I'm defending these people or their abhorrent views.
 
theprestige said:
It's not like NAMBLA and its ilk are unknown to us.
Click to expand...
I used to listen to a radio show that when mentioning any organization that also had an acronym would say, "also know as NAMBLA" So, The Federal Aviation Administration, also known as NAMBLA.

Any rate, I'm pretty sure in the US it is illegal to not hire someone if they were a member of NAMBLA at some point. Freedom of speech and association or what not. Sure, if you are convicted pedo you can't work at a school but short of a conviction, I'm not sure a school could fire you. So, the US likely as lots of folks working with children in schools and youth sports and such that were or are members of NAMBLA and I'm not sure we could do anything about it legally.
 
ahhell said:
I used to listen to a radio show that when mentioning any organization that also had an acronym would say, "also know as NAMBLA" So, The Federal Aviation Administration, also known as NAMBLA.

Any rate, I'm pretty sure in the US it is illegal to not hire someone if they were a member of NAMBLA at some point. Freedom of speech and association or what not. Sure, if you are convicted pedo you can't work at a school but short of a conviction, I'm not sure a school could fire you. So, the US likely as lots of folks working with children in schools and youth sports and such that were or are members of NAMBLA and I'm not sure we could do anything about it legally.
Click to expand...
It's legal to deny employment based on gang affiliation, but there are some caveats. It might be legal to reject a job application from a known NAMBLA member, if the job involves working with children.
 
The Don said:
Amid a media frenzy over Muslim Grooming Gangs and the Labour Party's failure to fix everything to the right wing's satisfaction in a few weeks, here's another story relating to potential child abuse.

The BBC has obtained a secret list of people (mostly men) who were part of an organisation which was seeking to legalise sex with children back in the 1970s and early 1980s and is leading with the following scare headline:


www.bbc.co.uk

Men on 1970s pro-paedophile list could still work with children today

A small number have been identified from a 300-strong group of adults who called for legal sex with children.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

This is absolutely true but, as the article goes on to point out


    • [*]There's no evidence that any of the people on the list are guilty of abuse
  • There's no evidence that these people are working with children
Innocent until proven guilty doesn't seem to apply in this case.

Not that I'm defending these people or their abhorrent views.
Click to expand...
Am I misunderstanding you. From the report: "They found records or further information for 45% of the people on the list - with a reasonable degree of certainty - and discovered that half of them had been convicted or cautioned (or had been charged and died before trial) for sexual offences against children. Charges included distributing abuse images, kidnap and rape."
 
Darat said:
It tried to insinuate itself into many groups that were looking to change society.

But I didn't think this was secret?
Click to expand...

That's correct. I was approached by one of these guys with his leaflets, presenting a 'respectable' front but I have never quite understood the aim of their organisation as never in a million years will it be legal for middle-aged guys like himself to be in such a repugnant relationship.
 
Vixen said:
That's correct. I was approached by one of these guys with his leaflets, presenting a 'respectable' front but I have never quite understood the aim of their organisation as never in a million years will it be legal for middle-aged guys like himself to be in such a repugnant relationship.
Click to expand...
What year was that?
 
Vixen said:
1974.
Click to expand...
They were just getting underway then, and seem to have thought that the general liberalisation of sexual matters would naturally extend to them, and the way they presented themselves did seem to take in some of the more naive.

www.bbc.co.uk

How did the pro-paedophile group PIE exist openly for 10 years?

The Paedophile Information Exchange was affiliated to the National Council for Civil Liberties in the late 1970s and early 1980s. But how did pro-paedophile campaigners operate so openly?
www.bbc.co.uk
 
Darat said:
It tried to insinuate itself into many groups that were looking to change society.

But I didn't think this was secret?
Click to expand...
From what I gather the organization and its leaders were not secret but the contributing membership mostly was. It appears the british police had that list for decades though.
 
Darat said:
Am I misunderstanding you. From the report: "They found records or further information for 45% of the people on the list - with a reasonable degree of certainty - and discovered that half of them had been convicted or cautioned (or had been charged and died before trial) for sexual offences against children. Charges included distributing abuse images, kidnap and rape."
Click to expand...
No, according to the article:

The BBC has established that a small number of the men are still alive and may currently be in contact with, or have care of, children through paid work or volunteering. The BBC has found no evidence any of them has carried out abuse.
Click to expand...
 
theprestige said:
No evidence of child abuse, or no police record of such? How deep did the BBC dig?
Click to expand...
Without any police record (much less any conviction(s)) then it would be unsupported allegations which would be a low bar even for today's sensationalist media.

The BBC is usually pretty thorough particularly when they're muck-raking like this. They'd be cock-a-whoop if they'd managed to find evidence of anyone on that list, who was still alive, who had access to children and for whom there was evidence of child abuse.
 
One person on the list was interviewed. He said he was never a member, but admits contact with the organisation, as a gay rights activist. There was a legitimate argument that the age of consent for male gay sex acts should be reduced to allow teenagers to consent. The age of consent for men was then 21, the age of consent for 'straight' sex was 16. Subsequently the law has changed in the UK so the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 16 regardless of the sex or genders involved. So I think we need to be careful not to assume that everyone listed had an interest in sex acts with children.
 
ahhell said:
Any rate, I'm pretty sure in the US it is illegal to not hire someone if they were a member of NAMBLA at some point. Freedom of speech and association or what not.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's generally true. Speech is protected from the government, but doesn't directly protect you against lawful acts (such as not hiring or firing) in the private sector. The government can't forbid companies from hiring you based on your political beliefs, but that doesn't mean a private company can't choose to do so. I think some states have additional labor protection laws against discrimination on the basis of political views, but not every state has those protections, and they might not even cover something like this, especially without a sympathetic judge/jury.

Not to mention, it's often impossible to prove why a given individual wasn't hired, even if that reason is technically illegal. For factors such as race or sex, with large companies you can try to get statistics to show patterns of discrimination. But there's no way you're going to get statistical data on which hires are or are not pedo-sympathetic to try to prove discrimination against that class.
 
Ziggurat said:
I don't think that's generally true. Speech is protected from the government, but doesn't directly protect you against lawful acts (such as not hiring or firing) in the private sector. The government can't forbid companies from hiring you based on your political beliefs, but that doesn't mean a private company can't choose to do so. I think some states have additional labor protection laws against discrimination on the basis of political views, but not every state has those protections, and they might not even cover something like this, especially without a sympathetic judge/jury.

Not to mention, it's often impossible to prove why a given individual wasn't hired, even if that reason is technically illegal. For factors such as race or sex, with large companies you can try to get statistics to show patterns of discrimination. But there's no way you're going to get statistical data on which hires are or are not pedo-sympathetic to try to prove discrimination against that class.
Click to expand...
That is true of course, I wouldn't recommend folks go telling hiring managers about their NAMBLA membership. I could just see that CV/resume, in the bit about extracurricular activities they say you should put there to let the folks no you are human.
 
Last edited:
Planigale said:
One person on the list was interviewed. He said he was never a member, but admits contact with the organisation, as a gay rights activist. There was a legitimate argument that the age of consent for male gay sex acts should be reduced to allow teenagers to consent. The age of consent for men was then 21, the age of consent for 'straight' sex was 16. Subsequently the law has changed in the UK so the age of consent to sexual intercourse is 16 regardless of the sex or genders involved. So I think we need to be careful not to assume that everyone listed had an interest in sex acts with children.
Click to expand...

The age of consent for gay sex had already been lowered. These guys were clear their aim was no age limit at all. But of course, agreeing with a view is not the same as going out and practising it.
 
Vixen said:
The age of consent for gay sex had already been lowered. These guys were clear their aim was no age limit at all. But of course, agreeing with a view is not the same as going out and practising it.
Click to expand...
There you go again. When the list was compiled, and also in 1974 which is when you said you had the encounter, the age of consent for gay men was 21.
 
Last edited:
zooterkin said:
There you go again. When the list was compiled, and also in 1974 which is when you said you had the encounter, the age of consent for gay men was 21.
Click to expand...
OK, fair enough.

The Sexual Offences Act of 1967 represented a partial decriminalisation of male homosexuality: it allowed two men to have sex in private in England and Wales provided they were over 21; much later, this provision was extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Over time, the age of consent for gay men became a live and contentious issue in UK politics.

In 1994 Conservative MP Edwina Currie introduced an amendment to lower the age of consent for homosexual acts, from 21 to 16 in line with that for heterosexual acts. Moving the amendment on 21 February 1994, Mrs Currie declared: ‘It is the first time in over a quarter of a century that the age of consent for homosexuals has been discussed by the House of Commons.
Click to expand...

During the time they crossed my path I was doing voluntary stuff for Blackhill Enterprises (Roy Harper) and these guys stood out like a sore thumb; middle-aged balding guys with paunches trying to inveigle themselves with young long-haired hippies. They definitely tried to make out there was nothing more natural than young children to be in a relationship with people such as themselves.
 
The Don said:
The BBC has obtained a secret list of people (mostly men) who were part of an organisation which was seeking to legalise sex with children back in the 1970s and early 1980s and is leading with the following scare headline:
Click to expand...
Didn't somebody argue for the same thing here back in the mid-'00s when it was still the JREF forum?
 
dann said:
Didn't somebody argue for the same thing here back in the mid-'00s when it was still the JREF forum?
Click to expand...
Doesn't look like he's a member anymore, so I suppose I can mention that the nick was Arcade.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Questions for Lucianarchy
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
234
Views
12K
Ashles
Ashles
R
2nd Amendment, On Trial in Supreme Court
Replies
3
Views
2K
BobK
B

Back
Top Bottom