So provide some evidence to support your claim!
Toots
The NCCL was a campaigner for civil liberties and therefore supported anyones right to free speech. Back in the 70's there was a lot of movement for repressive and draconian laws to be repealed and I can see how some groups would hijack legitimate causes like illegality of being a practicing homosexual for their own nefarious ends. Which is basically what PIE did. NCCL had over a 1000 affiliate groups, of which it was easy to gain. You paid your £15 and gained your affiliate status. Should we ban the BNP? EDL? or maybe the Socialist parties? religious parties?
So long as the group had committed no crime then we have to defend their right to be heard. If we don't agree with it then we fight their cause, not ban the group!
Max
You are quite correct their affiliate was removed in 1983, I should have done my homework correctly and chosen my choice of words better (must of been the red wine) To whit; whilst being a member of an executive committee does not mean that one agrees with all decisions. Being a democratic group sees motions carried that sometimes one doesnt agree with.
I should have said that Dromey defeated their motion to be heard within 8 weeks of his taking the chairmanship. So I dont see him supporting them at all.
Back on topic though, coverups by all governments are rife. We only get to hear what they (Government) want us to hear. This is either to suit them staying in power or for control.
It is a journalists duty to expose these coverups so we the people can make informed decisions about which bunch of idiots to put in power.
So yes, I believe Thatcher was complicit, but then they all are to a lesser or greater degree.
I am suggesting G, that Thatcher held sway on internal affairs and let us lesser mortals hear what she and her ilk thought was worthy of us. Therefore with what has come to light, which is questionable, she was complicit.
Max, freedom of speech, just because you dont like what some groups campaign for doesn't mean that their voices should be muted. That approach is a very slippery slope. Should they engage in any illegal acts then of course throw the book at them, but not for writing about them or engagement in campaigning! But since that was the 70's things were very different back then ala Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter et al.
If thats the case then maybe all copies of Anais Nin's "The Delta of Venus" should be burnt and everyone who has ever read it castigated in public, along with Nabokov's " " or "My Secret Life, diary of an Edwardian Gentleman" and maybe even the Bible.
Back to original topic, she's no longer with us
thanks for reminding us of that
:thumbup: