That whole episode of Labour's 'progressive' history shows how they lost the ball.

For them, it's all about the rights of minorities. In many cases it still is...they had to be weaned off it in this case. They knew about the protection of children back then as well. They just got the balance completely wrong.

If you are born a certain way it can mean that you are dangerous for society. You grow up in the culture that surrounds you. Quite rightly we protect child from sexual contact and this over-rides the rights of anything else.

Most of those who supported Labour of course always regarded this issue as children's protection first. This was a 'progressive' problem back in the day where they looked for acceptable circumstances around the edges.

Edited by Stirlingsays (02 Aug 2017 6.30pm)

The allegation is the law forces people to campaign for gay marriage....that is not the case...

The law prevents people from refusing to provide a service (offered to the public generally) because the provider is discriminating as a result of sexuality or religious belief.

The law would be exactly the same because someone declined to provide a cake (for someone paying to "campaign", not them) because the message on the cake said "oppose gay marriage".

As for Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey,why not let them have a word?

Harman:"..by the time I came to work for NCCL this vile organisation had already been vigorously challenged within the organisation. Jack Dromey was instrumental in that challenge when he took over the chair of NCCL in 1976."

Dromey:

"I did not agree with the proposal in February 1976 to lower the age of consent," he said. "When elected chairman of NCCL weeks later, I made it clear that my first priority would be to take on the child sex abusers of PIE. I then defeated them by a massive majority at the annual conference in April."

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2017 7.41pm)

The issue here is that performing sexual acts on pre pubescent children is purely self-gratification at the expense of an innocent victim. Even with sexually mature children, that could still be argued even if they are willing participants. If the adult is misled about their age then there is some mitigation but in general, it is an abuse and the abuse of children in particular for any reason is deplored by the vast majority and totally unacceptable. To argue that people can't help their proclivity is one thing but to suggest that they can't help acting on it is completely different. We all have to show restraint with sexual desire or we would all be in jail.

Is it deviant behaviour?
If one uses the argument that sexuality is natural so all sexual acts are natural then one could equally apply that logic to murder or torture or anything that humans do or can think up.
Deviant is really what the vast majority don't do. That can change of course and then it can stop being 'deviant' and become 'normal'.

The allegation is the law forces people to campaign for gay marriage....that is not the case...

The law prevents people from refusing to provide a service (offered to the public generally) because the provider is discriminating as a result of sexuality or religious belief.

The law would be exactly the same because someone declined to provide a cake (for someone paying to "campaign", not them) because the message on the cake said "oppose gay marriage".

As for Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey,why not let them have a word?

Harman:"..by the time I came to work for NCCL this vile organisation had already been vigorously challenged within the organisation. Jack Dromey was instrumental in that challenge when he took over the chair of NCCL in 1976."

Dromey:

"I did not agree with the proposal in February 1976 to lower the age of consent," he said. "When elected chairman of NCCL weeks later, I made it clear that my first priority would be to take on the child sex abusers of PIE. I then defeated them by a massive majority at the annual conference in April."

As reported in the press:"In 1979,Home Office advisers argued that the age of consent be lowered from 16 to 14 and called for a dramatic reduction in statutory punishments for "consensual" sex with girls as young as 12, according to an internal 1979 research study obtained by the Guardian.

The authors of the study from the Home Office research unit suggested the overall age of consent be lowered so that "sexual behaviour with a girl over the age of 13 (the average age of puberty) is not criminal, provided that she was clearly as aware of what she was doing and its implication as might be expected of a girl of 16".

So,if the study was completed in May 1979 or after in May 1979,lets damn similarly Maggie's government for allowing that? Anyway,lets be clear NCCL does not seem to have been out on an extreme limb on this at the time...whatever I or anyone else might think about the issue 35 years on...

Hands up,anyone on here lose their virginity between the ages of 14-16? I did...

Edited by legaleagle (02 Aug 2017 7.51pm)

The bakers didn't refuse the gay trouble maker because he was gay, they refused because of the slogan calling for the legalisation of same sex marriage. If a heterosexual man had asked for the same slogan, they would have refused him too.
As for the Harman and the NCCL. What sort of an organisation affiliates with something called 'Paedophile Exchange'? Would they have affiliated with them if they had the more accurate name of 'We F**k Kids'? It is great illustration of how foolish, misguided and dangerous such left/liberal groups are, and of course the NCCL was simply a communist party front in its early days.

The law is quite clear that a business has to abide by laws regarding who they serve and cannot discriminate.