Talk:Harriet Harman/Archive 3

legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties.
the NCforCL affiliation with the Paedophile Information Exchange

Why is there no mention of Harriet Harman's role at P.I.E? Before she became an MP, Harriet Harman was the legal officer in the late 1970s for the National Council for Civil Liberties. When Miss Harman joined NCCL in 1978, PIE, the Paedophile Information Exchange, had already been affiliated for three years. Another group, Paedophile Action for Liberation, a Gay Liberation Front offshoot, had also been affiliated to NCCL until it was absorbed by PIE. PIE, which campaigned for adults to have sex legally with children, only broke off its relationship with NCCL when it went undercover in 1982, the same year that Harriet Harman left her NCCL post to become Member of Parliament for Peckham. Jack Dromey, whom Harriet Harman married in 1982, and who is now Treasurer of the Labour Party, was also involved with the NCCL. He served on its Executive Committee from 1970 to 1979, so he was there when the decision to invite the two paedophile groups to affiliate was made. NCCL also set up a gay rights sub-committee at the same time, members of which included prominent paedophiles Peter Bremner (alias Roger Nash), Michael Burbidge, Keith Hose and Tom O'Carroll. And of course Walters and Locke were on the Executive.Twobells (talk) 11:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Oh I forgot, Harman also voted for reducing the age of sodomy to 16, two years below that of adulthood.Twobells (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC) It is a BLP violation to attach this to Harmen's bio, if you feel it is not and you want to insert a comment please open a thread to seek support and consensus at the WP:BLPN, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 11:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Since when is BLPN the first place to go? The proper place for the discussion is here first. -Rrius (talk) 22:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC) See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html Rob, I have pm'd you on your talk page for advice, thanks for the heads up.Twobells (talk) 11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC) This is clearly very notable, though please be careful to keep it relevant to Harman herself. For example the Dromey information could be mentioned briefly but most of that content would belong in his article rather than here. Also I don't think your mention of sodomy is notable at all, countless MPs voted for that on equality grounds and there's no evidence most others have links to paedophiles nor sympathies for their cause.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC) Can I just add that there are similar discussions regarding Patricia Hewitt's involvement on this issue - DerbyBob added information to her article and also contributed to the actual article on the Paedophile_Information_Exchange though Off2riorob has reverted all the edits and believes the information on Hewitt is defamatory.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC) We have to make a decision on adding the PIE entry into the wiki record, accusations of 'defamation' have no place on wikipedia if the actual evidence is factual which it is plus 'defamation' is only relevant to the spoken word. Libel (written evidence/accusations) is only relevant to false accusations, all the above is on record. Wikipedia if it to be respected as a research tool MUST make the hard choices and not be scared of pseudo legal manipulation to prevent us from shining a light into dark corners. I noted what DerbyBob wrote about Hewitt yet I could find no entry in her entry/discussions, if it has not been deleted then I would like a link, if it has been deleted I need to know as I follow senior editors wiki behaviour checking for vested interests. As for the 'sodomy' comment I believe it is notable as it factually reflects her ideological and personal belief system in reference to her previous work with PIE; nothing at all to do with how other politicians voted or that they might be involved in paedophilia and to suggest that is well..odd and slightly suspect.Twobells (talk) 09:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC) Yes, it is not going into the article under any circumstances thankyou. It is clearly a coatrack of extremely controversial detail and as such does not belong in this article or any other.Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2010 (UTC) The most recent write up of Harman and PIE was very well written and balance. Please do not remove it without discussion. Also to suggest such content doesn't belong anywhere on Wikipedia is beyond belief, the only issue is establishing exactly where such information belongs.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * editors were asked not to remove these well known facts from the entry as we had consensus, but it seems someone has, please do NOT remove again otherwise I will have the article protected and that is particularly directed at you Off2riorob. Twobells (talk) 10:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you suggesting that the above-quoted discussion from spring/summer 2010 is where this claimed concensus was established? Or somewhere else? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 15:32, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

This information breaches WP:UNDUE and it also a slur, as it implies Harman had involvement with PIE, when she only had an involvement with an organisation which may have had involvement with PIE. There is just not any chance this will be reasonable to include in a short article. DO NOT REPLACE IT WITHOUT CONSENSUS OR YOU WILL BE BLOCKED. Controversial information on a BLP, once challenged unless consensus rules it safe, neutral, and properly weighted (as I say, no chance here).--Scott Mac 15:35, 12 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Interesting, a threat of blocking having previously reached consensus.. Harman was the legal officer who represented the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) through the NCCL full stop. I have to ask why do you seem so aggressive and defensive? We reached consensus on this issue a long time ago, the material is highly relevant and notable, not a slur but historical fact. It was removed without discussion once before, BLP's are NOT marketing brochures nor cv's so I hardly think that one paragraph factually covering her background is WP: UNDUE, I am however quite happy to work the information into the main body of the article which I believe is best practice anyway.Twobells (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolutely not. There is no consensus I can see. And this information does not go in the article at all. UNDUE means that just because something is factual, does not mean it belongs in an article. You need to show it has had significant coverage in independent sources to show that it belongs in what will be a short article about an individual who has done many many things in her career. Can you show that when other biographical sources discuss her career, that this is a significant and notable fact? Present your evidence.--Scott Mac 17:14, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Also my position - absolutely not. - ever. Off2riorob (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Please stop vandalising the section header and attempting to whitewash the facts otherwise I will go before mediation and cite non-pov. The fact that you even renamed the section is telling very telling.The facts are a reality and having there inclusion is not undue weight, wikipedia articles are NOT cv's.

Twobells (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the key bit from the linked article is: "NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship”. She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.". I think she is shown there of taking a particular stance and that it is worthy of inclusion in the article. --bodnotbod (talk) 13:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)