THE HUFFINGTON
POST
'Paedogate' Gets Worse For Harriet Harman As PIE Leader Tom O'Carroll Reveals New Details
Harriet
Harman and Patricia Hewitt failed to take action to oust the Paedophile
Information Exchange (PIE) because they "didn't want to rock the
boat", its former chairman has claimed.
Tom
O'Carroll said Labour's deputy leader and the former health secretary did not
support PIE but "didn't even try" to cut its affiliation to the civil
liberties organisation they worked at for the sake of their careers.
Ms Harman
has said she has nothing to apologise for over the involvement of the National
Council for Civil Liberties with the paedophile rights campaign but expressed
"regret" that there had ever been a link between the two.
O'Carroll
sat on an NCCL gay rights sub-committee in the late 1970s and said there had
been no active attempt to remove him.
RELATED
Did Thatcher's Government Give
Taxpayers' Money To Paedophile Group PIE?
He told BBC
Radio 4's Today programme: "Really they didn't do much to oppose PIE's
presence in my view because there were these other liberal forces, or radical
forces, within NCCL.
"The
support didn't come from Harman and Co but it was there. The Gay Liberation
Front was very radical and at that time Harman and Patricia Hewitt couldn't
just kick out PIE. Well, they could both try but they didn't even try and the
reason they didn't try is they didn't want to rock the boat because their
careers within NCCL depended on them not rocking the boat too much."
The former
PIE chairman told the programme he never met Ms Harman but met Ms Hewitt
briefly at a conference in Sheffield in 1978.
He said:
"I spoke to her when we were just going up a floor or two in a lift and
she was somewhat frosty.
"I said
something to her, I think as a pleasantry, and she didn't take it that way. She
said that I'd been rude to her afterwards, which I hadn't been.
"My
impression was that she simply had great distaste for being in the same lift as
me."
Former
culture secretary Tessa Jowell said Ms Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey,
who also worked at NCCL in the 1970s, had been "completely
consistent" in their opposition to PIE and insisted there was "not
one shred of evidence that they gave any comfort to this revolting
organisation".
She told
Today: "There's no question of post-hoc justification here. The evidence
shows how vigorous Jack Dromey was in his attack on the Paedophile Information
Exchange.
"Harriet's
work at NCCL didn't bring her into contact with them at all."
A Labour MP
has called for an investigation into PIE after concerns that it could have
received public money.
Tom Watson
says he was contacted by a former civil servant who saw documentation
suggesting the organisation received taxpayer funding under Margaret Thatcher's
Conservative government.
"I was
contacted by a former Home Office civil servant who told me that he saw a
document that suggests the Paedophile Information Exchange got public
money," he told the Daily Mail.
"The
document was recommending approval for funding during the Thatcher government.
My source, who does not wish to talk to the media, said it appeared to be a
re-application for funds.
"He
could not be certain whether or not it had been funded by a Labour government
but he thought this was possible."
[A] These are not "vital" questions for me, Gene. They are, rather, a desperate attempt to salvage from the wreck of your defeated attempts to smear me as a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange, of paedophilia and or paedophiles.
ReplyDelete[B] I cannot remember when I became aware of the Paedophile Information Exchange, but it was probably at the same time as most newspaper readers did in the mid 1970s - around 1976.
[C] I honestly cannot remember if I knew that the PIE was affiliated to the NCCL until the controversy over this affiliation made headlines, so this was probably in about 1978.
[D] I took no steps whatsoever to dissociate "the Left" from endorsing the Paedophile Information Exchange, for the simple reason that "the Left" does not exist. Neither the Parliamentary Labour Party nor the Labour Party itself ever associated itself with the Paedophile Information Exchange, so no steps needed to be taken to sever a connection that had never existed.
Gene, do stop making a complete tit of yourself, there's a good lad. Your humiliating trouncing over Ratzinger, his failure to unfrock Stephen Keisle in 1985 "for the good of the Catholic Church", and his thereby enabling Keisle's subsequent freedom to rape small girls and bugger small boys at St Joseph's Church, Pinole, California for a further three years must have done a great deal of damage to even your ironclad self-esteem.
But this fatuous attempt at smearing me suggests encroaching derangement on your part, not least because I have already disposed of your previous attempts to do so, and because you yourself have said, on April 13th at 1241 BST:
"No one believes you support paedophilia."
If you said that then, why pursue this preposterous attempt to smear me now? How much have you had to drink today?
And just in case you have forgotten, in your drunken stupor, just how completely I refuted your ridiculous smears, have another look at this.
ReplyDelete"You repeatedly tried to smear me, because I am left wing, as an apologist for paedophilia and a supporter of the Paedophile Information Exchange. I repudiated these smears and disproved their validity. I challenged you nine times to answer three simple questions as to my stance on paedophilia and you evaded answering them. Because you are too cowardly to put your money where your mouth is. You claimed that my “failure to condemn the NCCL motion on paedophile” “spoke volumes” - but challenged to spell out what this “failure” actually said, you were too gutless to answer. And finally you were forced to admit that I do not support paedophilia, in effect disowning the vile smears you had been trying and failing to make stick for three days. Even then then you tried to weasel out of your responsibility for those atrocious slurs by claiming that you were “giving me a taste of my own medicine”. Nonsense: you were trying to push the evidence of your defeat over Ratzinger and Stephen Kiesle off the front page.
And anent Ratzinger, it is time that you stopped telling the ridiculous lie that Dawkins et al had threatened to have Ratzinger arrested - a lie that Mr Dawkins eventually forced the Murdoch press to retract - look it up. Dawkins et al claimed that Ratzinger’s complaisance and failure to act over paedophile priests meant that he had a case to answer in the civil courts. The truth of this has been demonstrated several times using Ratzinger’s failures to deal condignly with paedophile priests, as Archbishop of Munich, head of the Congregation of the Faith and as Pope. The enthusiastic reception accorded to Ratzinger by the Catholic faithful cannot and does not mitigate these criminal failures on his part.
And you claim “victory”? if this is victory, what would defeat look like?"
And, lest we forget:
ReplyDeleteHad Ratzinger unfrocked Kiesle in 1985, the abuse of children at St Joseph's would not have continued for a further three years. That is a FACT, no matter how often you try to deny it.
Ratzinger's apology in full reads as follows [my footnotes}:
“I can only express to all the victims [1] of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness. I have had great responsibilities [2] in the Catholic Church. All the greater is my pain for the abuses [3] and the errors [4] hat occurred in those different places [5] during the time of my mandate."[6]
1 ALL THE VICTIMS, Gene: victimS, plural: you can tell this by the S on the end of the word. All the victims of sexual abuse that occurred during Ratzingers time as Archbishop of Munich [1977- 1982] and later head of the Congregation of the Faith and Pope - that is, 1985 - 2013. The phrase "ALL THE VICTIMS therefore must include the victims of Stephen Kiesle between the years 1985-1988, when Ratzinger failed to unfrock Kiesle. [2] I HAVE HAD GREAT RESPONSIBILITES [see 1 above]: and one of those was to detect, root out and expel priests and others in the Catholic Church whose favourite hobby was buggering small boys and raping little girls. These GREAT RESPONSIBILITIES obviously include those children abused by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him in 1985. [3] THE ABUSES - these must include the abuses committed by Stephen Kiesle after Ratzinger failed to unfrock him [unless you can prove differently, Gene?].
[4] THE ERRORS - these must include Ratzinger's failure to unfrock Kiesle in 1985 and probably his failure to alert Fr Thomas Ryan that he was allowing a convicted paedophile rapist to minister to the young people in his church.
[5] THOSE DIFFERENT PLACES - except, of course at St Joseph's Church, Penole, CA, where Stephen Kiesle, still a priest, continued to abuse children during the years 1985-1988 - Ratzinger made it clear that his apology did not include this, didn't he, Gene, and you can prove that, can't you? What's that? oh, you can't? Dear me, and YOU call ME a lying tosser... [5] DURING MY MANDATE: that is, during the years 1985 - 2013.
It is clear to anyone whose mind has a greater ratiocinatory capacity than a pair of skid-marked underpants that Ratzinger was apologising for all the sexual abuse committed on his watch 1985-2013 by priests whom he failed either properly to oversee, accurately to diagnose and condignly to punish, as well as arranging for their being unable to access children and young people ever again.
"I can only express to ALL the victims of sexual abuse my profound shame, my deep sorrow and my heartfelt request for forgiveness." It's that word ALL that gives it away, Gene: I'm sorry if it's confusing. Stuff your pissy little opinions up your arse. I will not apologise for telling the truth, and I will go on telling it until you acknowledge that it is the truth. In the meantime, I continue to wait for your answer to this:
"Detters can we leave A.N. WILSON and ARIANNA HUFFINGTON behind?"
Not until you have dealt honestly with this example of your lying bastardy:
'Gene writes beautifully - something not always the case with authors of trail-blazing literary works.' [A.N. WILSON]
"The genius of James Joyce is alive and well and living amongst us. His name is Gene Vincent." [A.N. WILSON]
'I was enthralled. A new star has shot into the literary firmament. [ARIANNA HUFFINGTON]
When you are going to admit that you have made these reviews and their authors up? Make no mistake: I am going to keep on asking until you tell the truth, or I lose patience, inform Mr Wilson and Ms Huffington and let nature take its course.