CHILDREN NEED PROTECTION FROM THE LUNATIC FRINGE

My guess is that the well-heeled paedos are getting very twitchy. There is a lot of muck around. What to do? How about making paedophilia socially acceptable? It’s not the first time this has been tried. These sickos will try and tell us that sex between adult and child is non-harmful. Oh yeh? Try telling that to abuse victims! How can anyone possibly think it is ok to force themselves on children? We hear of horrific injuries to small children caused by sexual abuse, how can that be OK? It isn’t. It’s disgusting, depraved and demonstrates a complete inability to control sexual urges even though this can cause dreadful harm to the victim.

Yet it seems that the politically-correct lobby are attempting to convince us that there should be no paedo witch-hunting. And who is going to politically correctly protect those without a lobby – the vicitms? We have seen it before, Paedophile Information Exchange in the 70s was attempting to make it all sound quite normal.

….when the Protection of Children Bill was put before Parliament in order to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under-16s Harriett Harman was at the forefront of the NCCL response.  Signed by Harriett Harman in April 1978, the NCCL’s formal response to the Government proposals to reform sex laws dubbed a “Lolita’s Charter” was unbelievable.

Harman argued that, “…childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage…Although this harm may be of a somewhat speculative nature, where participation falls short of physical assault, it is none-the-less justifiable to restrain activities by photographer which involve placing children under the age of 14 (or, arguably, 16) in sexual situations. We suggest that the term ‘indecent’ be qualified as follows: – A photograph or film shall not for this purpose be considered indecent (a) by reason only that the model is in a state of undress (whether complete or partial); (b) unless it is proved or is to be inferred from the photograph or film that the making of the photograph or film might reasonably be expected to have caused the model physical harm or pronounced psychological or emotional disorder.”

 http://chris-ukorg.org/paedophile-party-members/p-i-e/

Tom Watson on the recent Guardian article:

Jon Henley had a piece in yesterday’s Guardian, entitled “Paedophilia: bringing dark desires to light”. He’s received a furious response on social media and I can see why. Many involved child protection will find it hard to see it as anything other than the commentariat’s backlash, a contrarian response to a public outcry over recent revelations about child abuse by the rich and famous.

That may be harsh, and I felt a considered response was important. These thoughts are my own, but I have lent heavily on the work and advice of Dr Liz Davies, a leading academic in the field of child protection.

In a brief Twitter exchange, Jon pointed me to the final two paragraphs of his article. Quoting senior lecturer Sarah Goode he writes, “If we can talk about this rationally – acknowledge that yes, men do get sexually attracted to children, but no, they don’t have to act on it – we can maybe avoid the hysteria. We won’t label paedophiles monsters; it won’t be taboo to see and name what is happening in front of us.”

http://www.tom-watson.co.uk/2013/01/6445

It’s worth reading comments on his blog too.

Hands off children! There is no other way to see this. Children have little enough clout as it is. Paedos don’t need a protection lobby – children do.

 

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s