#1 Operation Normalising Nonces: Guardian: Paedophiles are 'ordinary members of society' who need moral support/PIE/Harriet Harman/etc

[Dan_O]

In both pictures, something about that girl looks a little "off". Off as in bat chit crazy.

[NewsFeed]

Passing sentence, Judge Tim Mousley QC said it was an exceptional case that allowed him to step outside the rigours of the sentencing guidelines .

He told Hatt: "Having read everything before me, it was quite clear he was a mature 11-year-old and you were an immature 20-year-old so that narrows the arithmetic age gap between you.

"I have read the comments of the boy's father to the police where he doesn't consider you a typical 20-year-old. I have also read what he has said about the effect on the victim."

Swindon Crown Court heard the incident, which took place last November, lasted around 45 seconds, following which the boy admitted he had not enjoyed it as he knew it was wrong.

Hannah Squire, prosecuting, said: "The defendant was friends with the boy's father, with whom she had had a brief sexual relationship.

"He would ask her to babysit; she had babysat his 11-year-old son on six or seven occasions. On one of those occasions this offence took place.

"It was during the day and the boy was off school. The defendant arrived at about 11.30am. The boy was laying down, Jade Hatt sat on top of him, sat astride him, took off her clothes and removed his.

"In his words she started bouncing on his private parts. Sexual intercourse took place. According to him it was fairly brief: about 45 seconds. She told him she enjoyed it, he said he had not as it was wrong."

She said the boy's father noticed he had a love bite on his neck and text messages from Hatt were diverted to his phone, revealing what had taken place.

Police were called and, when arrested, Hatt told officers the boy had told her he was 15, even though she knew his

----- snip -----


read full article at source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...y-aged-11.html

[procopius]

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/...-a6704201.html

Not all paedophiles are bad people - we need to have a sense of proportion

In my studies of the activist group Paedophile Information Exchange, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to turn to social good

The public is reviled by the predatory antics of Jimmy Savile that have recently come to light, no doubt rightly. Clearly, he had sexually exploited young fans over many years, while authorities turned a blind eye.

Since then, allegations have been levelled at several celebrities, past and present, and atonement is in the air for the decades of sexual abuse they are suspected of. Many more victims will no doubt emerge to recall episodes in the past.

But we need to keep a sense of proportion here. There is a danger of becoming hysterical about paedophilia and seeing it everywhere, like witches at Salem, or “Commies” in Hollywood during McCarthyism. Paedophiles do exist, but there are very few of them and not all are child molesters. It is possible to be attracted to children as a sexual orientation without acting upon those desires.

In my studies of the Paedophile Information Exchange in the 1980s, many members admitted sexual feelings for children which they had been able to contain or turn to social good. Some gravitated toward occupations such as schoolteacher or social worker, where they could enjoy the company of children without plotting abuse. This fitted with personality profiles indicating that they were gentle, rational and not disposed to harm anybody. (Just good folks really)

If not all paedophiles molest children, much child abuse (perhaps 80 per cent) is perpetrated by non-paedophiles, often family or friends. The UK legal age of consent of 16 is arbitrary. Many men admit attraction to underage girls, even if they would not consider taking advantage. (You see, the real child abusers are hetero-normals)

Others might be more lax (John Peel famously said that he “never checked the IDs” of the backstage fans who queued up to meet him after radio shows). But such men would not be called paedophiles unless they were exclusively attracted to children. Nor would we regard a female schoolteacher who has an affair with one of her teenage pupils a paedophile, however immoral her behaviour – “sexual abuse” is often referred to, whereas the term “paedophile” is rarely employed.

Perhaps we should stop looking for “peds under the bed” as scapegoats and focus on clarifying the criteria regarding unacceptable exploitation of those in vulnerable positions - whether due to age or any other circumstance. (We need to stop the witch hunt for paedophiles and show empathy to these good meaning people who are just born that way and who love differently but equally.

[NewsFeed]

NAMBLA (the North American Man/Boy Love Association): frenemies of kids and the occasional politician since December 2, 1978. The NAMBLA Bulletin, a quarterly magazine put out by the seemingly defunct pedophila actvitst group and geared toward fans of all things kiddie-fiddler, was described by NAMBLA’s cofounder David Thorstad as "a semi-pornographic jerk-off mag for pedophiles." For real!

Like a typical magazine, the NAMBLA Bulletin had your typical “Letter to the Editor” and “News” columns, but it would also run guest authored features like “Gulags For Teens?” Truly knowing their reader’s habits, the NAMBLA Bulletin saved the best part for last; because federal laws make child pornagraphy illegal, The Bulletin’s “In the Media” section could be found in the publication’s final pages. It featured loads of fun photos and steered their readers to the best movies, TV shows, music and gossip that the magazine's editors thought their fans might be interested in.

In Thorstad’s defense, he wrote an open letter condemning the direction he saw the magazine’s current editors taking it, asking “has The Bulletin forgotten that NAMBLA has always consisted not only of pedophiles, but also of pederasts? In fact, were it not for the pederasts, there would never have been a NAMBLA...What has happened to the political goals of NAMBLA, which are to struggle for sexual freedom and liberation, not merely for the right of dirty old men to get their vicarious jollies?”

Regardless! Below are some of NAMBLA’s favorite childhood stars, alongside captions from The Bulletin's "In the Media" section.

read full article at source: http://ratter.com/ratter/all/ratter/...bla-pedophilia

[andy]

This concerns a US publication - One can only presume it is here as the UK is perceived as a paedophile nation even by newsbots and who can gainsay? With obvious nonces such as Benn - Osborne and Clarke lionised in the system press?

[NewsFeed]

UK – “Pedophilia Is Natural, And Normal For Males To Be Aroused By Children” | The Ugly Truth

Intelligent 'anti-Semitism' for thinking Gentiles

UK – “Pedophilia Is Natural, And Normal For Males To Be Aroused By Children”



Sabba – This is an old article (2014) but worth reading (again).

Now isn’t it very interesting that these (jewish) ‘academics’ come to the very same conclusion as judaism?… So it is not enough that Europe and Europeans are completely owned by jews, it is not enough that they are totally judaized, they now must be talmudized.

I hope we are going to see ‘white men militia’ being formed and come forward to protect the ‘white children’ now (while kids in the Middle East, Africa, South East Asia can continue to be raped by white men: these do not count, do they?)

I also hope the ‘white’ nationalists, patriots, those who feel it is their God given mission to stand up against the Islamification of jewish owned Europe, I am hoping they will read this and ponder.

You shall have no other god but yahweh.





"Paedophilic interest is natural and normal for human males,” said the presentation. “At least a sizeable minority of normal males would like to have sex with children … Normal males are aroused by children.”

Some yellowing tract from the Seventies or early Eighties, era of abusive celebrities and the infamous PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange? No. Anonymous commenters on some underground website? No again.

The statement that paedophilia is “natural and normal” was made not three decades ago but last July. It was made not in private but as one of the central claims of an academic presentation delivered, at the invitation of the organisers, to many of the key experts in the field at a conference held by the University of Cambridge.

Other presentations included “Liberating the paedophile: a discursive analysis,” and “Danger and difference: the stakes of hebephilia.”

Hebephilia is the sexual preference for children in early puberty, typically 11 to 14-year-olds.



Another attendee, and enthusiastic participant from the floor, was one Tom O’Carroll, a multiple child sex offender, long-time campaigner for the legalisation of sex with children and former head of the Paedophile Information Exchange. “Wonderful!” he wrote on his blog afterwards. “It was a rare few days when I could feel relatively popular!”

Last week, after the conviction of Rolf Harris, the report into Jimmy Savile and claims of an establishment cover-up to protect a sex-offending minister in Margaret Thatcher’s Cabinet, Britain went into a convulsion of anxiety about child abuse in the Eighties. But unnoticed amid the furore is a much more current threat: attempts, right now, in parts of the academic establishment to push the boundaries on the acceptability of child sex.


Jimmy Savile exploited the trust of a nation for his own vile purposes

A key factor in what happened all those decades ago in the dressing rooms of the BBC, the wards of the NHS and, allegedly, the corridors of power was not just institutional failings or establishment “conspiracies”, but a climate of far greater intellectual tolerance of practices that horrify today.

With the Pill, the legalisation of homosexuality and shrinking taboos against premarital sex, the Seventies was an era of quite sudden sexual emancipation. Many liberals, of course, saw through PIE’s cynical rhetoric of “child lib”. But to others on the Left, sex by or with children was just another repressive boundary to be swept away – and some of the most important backing came from academia.

In 1981, a respectable publisher, Batsford, published Perspectives on Paedophilia, edited by Brian Taylor, a sociology lecturer at Sussex University, to challenge what Dr Taylor’s introduction called the “prejudice” against child sex. Disturbingly, the book was aimed at “social workers, community workers, probation officers and child care workers”.

The public, wrote Dr Taylor, “generally thinks of paedophiles as sick or evil men who lurk around school playgrounds in the hope of attempting unspecified beastliness with unsuspecting innocent children”. That, he reassured readers, was merely a “stereotype”, both “inaccurate and unhelpful”, which flew in the face of the “empirical realities of paedophile behaviour”. Why, most adult-child sexual relationships occurred in the family!

The perspectives of most, though not all, the contributors, appeared strongly pro-paedophile. At least two were members of PIE and at least one, Peter Righton, (who was, incredibly, director of education at the National Institute for Social Work) was later convicted of child sex crimes. But from the viewpoint of today, the fascinating thing about Perspectives on Paedophilia is that at least two of its contributors are still academically active and influential.


Ken Plummer is emeritus professor of sociology at Essex University, where he has an office and teaches courses, the most recent scheduled for last month. “The isolation, secrecy, guilt and anguish of many paedophiles,” he wrote in Perspectives on Paedophilia, “are not intrinsic to the phenomen[on] but are derived from the extreme social repression placed on minorities …

“Paedophiles are told they are the seducers and rapists of children; they know their experiences are often loving and tender ones. They are told that children are pure and innocent, devoid of sexuality; they know both from their own experiences of childhood and from the children they meet that this is not the case.”

As recently as 2012, Prof Plummer published on his personal blog a chapter he wrote in another book, Male Intergenerational Intimacy, in 1991. “As homosexuality has become slightly less open to sustained moral panic, the new pariah of 'child molester’ has become the latest folk devil,” he wrote. “Many adult paedophiles say that boys actively seek out sex partners … 'childhood’ itself is not a biological given but an historically produced social object.”

Prof Plummer confirmed to The Sunday Telegraph that he had been a member of PIE in order to “facilitate” his research. He said: “I would never want any of my work to be used as a rationale for doing 'bad things’ – and I regard all coercive, abusive, exploitative sexuality as a 'bad thing’. I am sorry if it has impacted anyone negatively this way, or if it has encouraged this.” However, he did not answer when asked if he still held the views he expressed in the Eighties and Nineties. A spokesman for Essex University claimed Prof Plummer’s work “did not express support for paedophilia” and cited the university’s charter which gave academic staff “freedom within the law to put forward controversial and unpopular opinions without placing themselves in jeopardy”.

Graham Powell is one of the country’s most distinguished psychologists, a past president of the British Psychological Society and a current provider of psychology support services to the Serious Organised Crime Agency, the National Crime Squad, the Metropolitan Police, Kent Police, Essex Police and the Internet Watch Foundation.

In Perspectives on Paedophilia, however, he co-authored a chapter which stated: “In the public mind, paedophile attention is generally assumed to be traumatic and to have lasting and wholly deleterious consequences for the victim. The evidence that we have considered here does not support this view … we need to ask not why are the effects of paedophile action so large, but why so small.”

The chapter does admit that there were “methodological problems” with the studies the authors relied on which “leave our conclusions somewhat muted”. Dr Powell told The Sunday Telegraph last week that “what I wrote was completely wrong and it is a matter of deep regret that it could in any way have made things more difficult [for victims]”. He said: “The literature [scientific evidence] was so poor in 1981, people just didn’t realise what was going on. There was a lack of understanding at the academic level.” Dr Powell said he had never been a member of PIE.

In other academic quarters, with rather fewer excuses, that lack of understanding appears to be reasserting itself. The Cambridge University conference, on July 4-5 last year, was about the classification of sexuality in the DSM, a standard international psychiatric manual used by the police and courts.

After a fierce battle in the American Psychiatric Association (APA), which produces it, a proposal to include hebephilia as a disorder in the new edition of the manual has been defeated. The proposal arose because puberty in children has started ever earlier in recent decades and as a result, it was argued, the current definition of paedophilia – pre-pubertal sexual attraction – missed out too many young people.

Ray Blanchard, professor of psychiatry at the University of Toronto, who led the APA’s working group on the subject, said that unless some other way was found of encompassing hebephilia in the new manual, that was “tantamount to stating that the APA’s official position is that the sexual preference for early pubertal children is normal”.

Prof Blanchard was in turn criticised by a speaker at the Cambridge conference, Patrick Singy, of Union College, New York, who said hebephilia would be abused as a diagnosis to detain sex offenders as “mentally ill” under US “sexually violent predator” laws even after they had completed their sentences.

But perhaps the most controversial presentation of all was by Philip Tromovitch, a professor at Doshisha University in Japan, who stated in a presentation on the “prevalence of paedophilia” that the “majority of men are probably paedophiles and hebephiles” and that “paedophilic interest is normal and natural in human males”.

O’Carroll, the former PIE leader, was thrilled, and described on his blog how he joined Prof Tromovitch and a colleague for drinks after the conference. “The conversation flowed most agreeably, along with the drinks and the beautiful River Cam,” he said.

It’s fair to say the Tromovitch view does not represent majority academic opinion. It’s likely, too, that some of the academic protests against the “stigmatisation” of paedophiles are as much a backlash against the harshness of sex offender laws as anything else. Finally, of course, academic inquiry is supposed to question conventional wisdom and to deal rigorously with the evidence, whether or not the conclusions it leads you to are popular.

Even so, there really is now no shortage of evidence about the harm done by child abuse. In the latest frenzy about the crimes of the past, it’s worth watching whether we could, in the future, go back to the intellectual climate which allowed them.








read full article at source: http://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/20...d-by-children/

[confederate]

Pedophilia is so blaise'. i'm waiting for beastiality to become avant garde.

[Graeme43]

Originally Posted by confederate

Pedophilia is so blaise'. i'm waiting for beastiality to become avant garde.

The moslems will love that though i don't see how anyone could even consider it