PIE - Questions that need answering.

 

Some good articles this week in the Daily Mail (yes before you say, I know, it's the Mail....).

 

Links and articles below. Fair play on Guy Adams for bringing this up -and what must happen now is this must not be allowed to once again slip down the list of priorities, slip away under the radar and be forgotten about in a few months or so. Answers are needed.

 

Vital questions these Labour apologists for child sex MUST now answer

 

 

All good, pertinent legitimate questions - all ones that need to be answered.

 

Who cares about the names concerned - if these questions were asked to a normal pleb member of the public, there would be a proper full enquiry. What makes MPs so special? What makes them so "special"?

 

To read the full articles (so far), please read these links.

 

 

DAILY MAIL COMMENT: The Labour elite who gave succour to paedophiles

 

How three of the party's most senior figures campaigned for a vile paedophile group now being probed by police for 'abusing children on an industrial scale'

 

Inexcusable: Leading abuse charity demands apology from Labour trio with links to vile paedophile group

 

Daily Mail puts pressure on trio over NCCL's former paedophile links

 

Now say sorry! Ex-Yard chief calls on Labour trio to admit backing paedophilia was a 'huge mistake'

 

 

and this article from December 2013 (Guy Adams again)

 

Apologists for paedophiles: How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children

 

Uncomfortable & nauseating reading. If these links are proven between NCCL and PIE, the very least that should happen is unreserved apologies from these three.

 

For those unfamiliar with P.I.E, take a read of the below, (if you can stomach it).

 

 

Magpie: The journal of P.I.E issue 11 May 1978

 

 

Now, I have two more questions in addition to the ones that the DM has.

 

An excerpt from the above link, includes this gem:

 

"All members of the House of Commons and some Lords have been sent a copy of PIE’s new booklet Paedophilia – some Questions and Answers. This distribution was timed to coincide with a Press Release announcing the publication of the booklet. 180 newspapers and periodicals in the U.K.. received this Press Release."

 

Question one - as well as focusing (understandably) on Harmen, Hewitt and Dromey, surely questions need to be asked as to why, when all members of the HoC and a selection of Lords were sent this and presumably read it, why this group of disgusting individuals aka P.I.E. were allowed to continue with their perverted views & pro-paedophile group until disbanding 6 years after this was published?

 

Question two - where are the other media outlets? Why is this just being highlighted in the DM by one journalist (Guy Adams)? Why are there not investigations by ALL the media? Is this not important?

 

Please Guy Adams, keep digging - keep exploring - keep this going - this cannot be left and forgotten about.


2014 - A New Year, New Attitude And New Language.

Sent to all the UK major media outlets. Let's see what we get back.

"Good evening and a Happy New Year to you.

Now that we have a brand new year, please can I ask that we have a brand new attitude to the language that you use to describe child sexual abuse. What I am proposing is as below:

"Child pornography" to be changed to "Child Abuse Images" or "Indecent Images of Children" (the correct legal definition). Reasons are that by definition, children cannot consent to anything sexual under 16 years of age, therefore cannot do "porn". Also, by definition as well, the only people who would refer to images or videos of naked children, or child sex abuse as "porn" are paedophiles - the rest of us would never think this was porn in a million years. Why should we use "paedo talk" to describe such images then?

"Child Prostitutes" to be changed to "Prostituted Children". Reasoning, although it seems that there is very little change, is the way in which the wording of the two relates to the victim of this crime. "Child prostitute" implies consent and a willingness to do this from the child, whereas "Prostituted Child" implies the forcing of this sexual exploitation by a third party (offender) and is therefore the accurate description.

"Child Sex" to be changed to "Child Rape" or "Child Sexual Abuse". Reasoning is the lack of consent between offender and victim. Sex is a natural consensual adult activity - Rape is sexual assault  initiated by someone against the others consent. With the new guidelines coming into force soon, and the removal of ostensible consent, there is no reason to describe the rape of a child as "child sex"

Offenders having "Affairs" with girls (usually when describing teacher-pupil abuse) or "Relationships" to be changed to "sexually abusing". reasoning is similar to the above - affairs are normally described as a romantic and sexual relationship between two people who are not married to each other. As both "affair" and "relationship" imply consent, which is by definition not there as one party is a child under sixteen, this can only be described as Sexual Abuse.

I realise that all of you don't all use all the above, but you do use some of them. To stop trivialising these offenses, facilitating offenders,  and offending victims of these crimes, please can you consider my points as above.

I would be very grateful if you could let me know your thoughts - as I said above, "A new year, a new attitude and a new more accurate way of reporting.

Many thanks"