Can anyone give me good reason why we shouldn't sign this?

[DavidinSouthampton]

Take that as you have written....It is worse than the Sun and Mirror.....Ans; IN YOUR OPINION! Being one of the biggest Daily sellers proves a lot of people don't agree with you.
Private Eye is a satirical magizine,so it's judgement on other parts of the press is hardly worthy of note.

When my daughter a few years ago was considering applying to go in the Army as a medic, she was told by someone very senior in their recruiting structure that one of the best ways of keeping up with the news was to read Private Eye.

And I totally agree with Spring Hall Convert - #23. Private Eye often prints the truth that others don't dare to. It is also hysterically funny on occasion.

 

[Badger]

The words "sexualising children" aren't required in the title of the petition.

 

[Nitram]

Read up on Harriet Harman her recent spat with the Mail and Newsnight and then decide.

 

[ofco8]

Thank goodness I believe in the freedom of the press. If they print falsehoods/libel etc. then the courts can deal with it.

 

[Nibble]

I ****ing hate the Mail and I ****ing hate Owen Jones. This petition is a waste of time.

 

[spring hall convert]

Thank goodness I believe in the freedom of the press. If they print falsehoods/libel etc. then the courts can deal with it.

So the press should be free to write sexually suggestive articles about minors? Serious question, there has to be a limit somewhere - even now, we don't have a totally free press do we?

 

[cunning fergus]

I'm not trying to silence the story but the Mail needs to get its own house in order RE their own attitude towards the sexualisation of children before it can talk with any degree of authority on the subject. What with Paul Dacre's EU funding for his estate, the Rothermere's in tax exile, it's begining to look like a bigger glass house than the Shard.

Well the mail may be guilty of journalistic/editorial hypocrisy on some stories, however it has yet to be revealed that it formed an alliance with a group of predatory sex cases seeking to decriminalise sex with children for their own ends. These are the facts and it appears that Harman and Co shared and/or supported at the very least some of these views in the 70s and 80s. These are individuals who are still able to exert influence in their respective positions at the heart of this country's political establishment.

Given your apparent zeal for justice in this area I am sure you are equally disgusted at the conduct of such people.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/26/lobbying-paedophile-campaign-revealed-hewitt

It's interesting that Patricia Hewitt has issued a statement today...........

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I ****ing hate the Mail and I ****ing hate Owen Jones. This petition is a waste of time.

I don't hate the mail, but like you I ****ing hate Owen Jones.

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Personally i'd rather a paper other than the Mail had raised this issue. Harman really should provide a stronger response than the weaselly expression of regret.However The Daily Mails vindictive campaign against labour politicians has given her a screen to hide behind.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

Is there a petition against that "Big Fat Gypsy Wedding" TV programme and travellers in general? The travelling community seem to have no qualms about "sexualising" their young daughters.

 

[TSB]

The Sun & Mirror were just as bad with their anti-'paedo' campaign at the same time as they were counting down the days until Charlotte Church's sixteen birthday.

That said, hate the mail so gladly signed.

 

[spring hall convert]

Well the mail may be guilty of journalistic/editorial hypocrisy on some stories, however it has yet to be revealed that it formed an alliance with a group of predatory sex cases seeking to decriminalise sex with children for their own ends. These are the facts and it appears that Harman and Co shared and/or supported at the very least some of these views in the 70s and 80s. These are individuals who are still able to exert influence in their respective positions at the heart of this country's political establishment.

Given your apparent zeal for justice in this area I am sure you are equally disgusted at the conduct of such people.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2014/feb/26/lobbying-paedophile-campaign-revealed-hewitt

It's interesting that Patricia Hewitt has issued a statement today...........

I'd rally against - "supported the view," they didn't. They were at the same table but that it no way means they were somehow in favour of paedophila. The late 70's and early 80's were a very different place (as Yewtree has discovered) and some vile views were somehow allowed a voice, bear in mind that the larger group that went onto form Liberty (not the PIE) have been instrumental in some of the wonderful social change that has happened in this country regarding individuals' rights.

This story comes from the same Labour bashing place as Milliband's dad hating the country. It's also interesting to note that this was reported in Private Eye over ten years ago so why have the Mail just got hold of it now?

Having said that, I think HH has been a bit silly here. I understand she was working as a junior lawyer at the time. A statemment issued categorising her position and apologising would have been sufficent. Truthfully I get the feeling that HH would see that as responding to a story she thinks is ludicrous. That's a mistake I think.

 

[cunning fergus]

I'd rally against - "supported the view," they didn't. They were at the same table but that it no way means they were somehow in favour of paedophila. The late 70's and early 80's were a very different place (as Yewtree has discovered) and some vile views were somehow allowed a voice, bear in mind that the larger group that went onto form Liberty (not the PIE) have been instrumental in some of the wonderful social change that has happened in this country regarding individuals' rights.

This story comes from the same Labour bashing place as Milliband's dad hating the country. It's also interesting to note that this was reported in Private Eye over ten years ago so why have the Mail just got hold of it now?

Having said that, I think HH has been a bit silly here. I understand she was working as a junior lawyer at the time. A statemment issued categorising her position and apologising would have been sufficent. Truthfully I get the feeling that HH would see that as responding to a story she thinks is ludicrous. That's a mistake I think.

Really? That is a view you have despite the Guardian’s own article which confirms that there was a meeting of minds between Hewitt and Harman with PIE on some matters…………….as below:

According to archives held at Hull University, in December 1975 Keith Hose, chairman of PIE, wrote to Patricia Hewitt, then general secretary of NCCL and later a Labour health secretary, asking her to consider PIE's views in its policy on ages of consent. The letter was on PIE notepaper which features a logo of two bare-legged children sitting on a rock. Hewitt wrote back saying: "We have found your evidence ... most helpful and I think it has certainly been taken into account by the people preparing our evidence."

The archive includes a NCCL briefing note that argues that child pornography should not be outlawed in the bill and how Harman, who started at NCCL in 1978, herself urged changes to the bill that year telling MPs "images of children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven the subject suffered".
The fact that the 70s and 80s were different social times is not a mitigating factor at all, as the recent court cases and scandals of sex abuse from those times are amply demonstrating.

The fact that you (and many others) have an justified or unjustified axe to grind with the Mail’s editorial policy is one matter, it does not however mean that this issue is somehow less relevant to the general public because it is the Mail that has decided to re-investigate and report on it.

I suspect like many people, Hewitt, Dromy and Harman are all less radical than they were, and their (possibly) well intended reformist ideologies have mellowed with time, and not least as they have themselves become the very corpulent “establishment” types that they once despised.

That is the rub though………….it is essential the past lives of public figures is open to absolute scrutiny by the press; look for example how the Guardian went after Nigel Farage as a schoolboy.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-hitler-youth-song-video

This is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

When my daughter a few years ago was considering applying to go in the Army as a medic, she was told by someone very senior in their recruiting structure that one of the best ways of keeping up with the news was to read Private Eye.

And I totally agree with Spring Hall Convert - #23. Private Eye often prints the truth that others don't dare to. It is also hysterically funny on occasion.

Agree with you that itis funny...so was Fawlty Towers...set in Torquay...but apart from a couple of stills was never actually filmed there... I have read Private Eye many times...but as for being true...? It was and will always be known as a satirical magazine...

 

[spring hall convert]

Really? That is a view you have despite the Guardian’s own article which confirms that there was a meeting of minds between Hewitt and Harman with PIE on some matters…………….as below:

According to archives held at Hull University, in December 1975 Keith Hose, chairman of PIE, wrote to Patricia Hewitt, then general secretary of NCCL and later a Labour health secretary, asking her to consider PIE's views in its policy on ages of consent. The letter was on PIE notepaper which features a logo of two bare-legged children sitting on a rock. Hewitt wrote back saying: "We have found your evidence ... most helpful and I think it has certainly been taken into account by the people preparing our evidence."

The archive includes a NCCL briefing note that argues that child pornography should not be outlawed in the bill and how Harman, who started at NCCL in 1978, herself urged changes to the bill that year telling MPs "images of children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven the subject suffered".
The fact that the 70s and 80s were different social times is not a mitigating factor at all, as the recent court cases and scandals of sex abuse from those times are amply demonstrating.

The fact that you (and many others) have an justified or unjustified axe to grind with the Mail’s editorial policy is one matter, it does not however mean that this issue is somehow less relevant to the general public because it is the Mail that has decided to re-investigate and report on it.

I suspect like many people, Hewitt, Dromy and Harman are all less radical than they were, and their (possibly) well intended reformist ideologies have mellowed with time, and not least as they have themselves become the very corpulent “establishment” types that they once despised.

That is the rub though………….it is essential the past lives of public figures is open to absolute scrutiny by the press; look for example how the Guardian went after Nigel Farage as a schoolboy.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2013/sep/20/nigel-farage-hitler-youth-song-video

This is a classic case of wanting to have your cake and eat it.

“flirty white dresses.”
“made the most of their trim pins”
"leggy beauty".
Teenager Elle Fanning shows off her womanly curves
When she turned around, flesh was on show as the cut-out material scooped to just above her derriere and featured clasps which fastened at the centre of her neck."

Justified or unjustifed?

I see you've picked and chosen from the Guardian article to suit your own means. You're entitled to believe what you wish to believe, it's still not a reason to argue against signing this petiton.

 

[spring hall convert]

I have read Private Eye many times...but as for being true...? It was and will always be known as a satirical magazine...

Perhaps they need to signpost the satire for you. Yes some of it is satirical but the majority is investigative journalism. The cartoon in the Mail tends to be satyrical. Dies that mean you disregard the rest of the paper?

 

[cunning fergus]

“flirty white dresses.”
“made the most of their trim pins”
"leggy beauty".
Teenager Elle Fanning shows off her womanly curves
When she turned around, flesh was on show as the cut-out material scooped to just above her derriere and featured clasps which fastened at the centre of her neck."

Justified or unjustifed?

I see you've picked and chosen from the Guardian article to suit your own means. You're entitled to believe what you wish to believe, it's still not a reason to argue against signing this petiton.

I don't know if the reporting you have highlighted from the Mail is justified or not, I have already indicated that there may well be justified criticism of the Mail's editorial policy on how they convey stories about young women and/or teenagers, or anything else for that matter.

That is not the point though, as I suspect you well know. The fact is that this petition has only arisen because of the story the Mail is pursuing with NCCL and PIE. There is unequivocal evidence that a relationship existed and the Guardian is referring to that evidence. I don't have to "believe" anything when there are undeniable facts available to the public. The only point you need to reconcile yourself with is that these 2 matters are not related.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

For one I can't stand Owen Jones so I wouldn't satisfy his ego by signing that pathetic petition. Secondly I don't know why people are wasting their time because nothing will happen, and thirdly I really don't know how a 30 year old thinks he has the life and / or work experience to dictate to the rest of us what is going wrong with our country.

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-problem-with-owen-jones/

Funny how you have this view. My view is we should be letting "30 year olds" have more say. Mine and your generation, for all the "life and / or work experience" you claim has made a right **** up of things. What qualifies us? Maybe it's time for us to hand the baton down to the next generation? They can't do much worse and as I often find they have much smarter ideas and solutions to things.

 

[cunning fergus]

Funny how you have this view. My view is we should be letting "30 year olds" have more say. Mine and your generation, for all the "life and / or work experience" you claim has made a right **** up of things. What qualifies us? Maybe it's time for us to hand the baton down to the next generation? They can't do much worse and as I often find they have much smarter ideas and solutions to things.

Surely story is an prime example of why we should not be passing the baton to 30 year olds. Both Hewitt and Harman were 30 around 1979, exactly when they were in senior positions of a political lobbying group which had allowed itself to be influenced by a group of sex cases.

No doubt they were bright and well intentioned, but that does not mean that they were not naive and woefully lacking in perspective.

Perspective comes from experience and that is why they are now apologising (to a greater or lesser extent) for not recognising then quite what they were involved in.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Funny how you have this view. My view is we should be letting "30 year olds" have more say. Mine and your generation, for all the "life and / or work experience" you claim has made a right **** up of things. What qualifies us? Maybe it's time for us to hand the baton down to the next generation? They can't do much worse and as I often find they have much smarter ideas and solutions to things.

Surely story is an prime example of why we should not be passing the baton to 30 year olds. Both Hewitt and Harman were 30 around 1979, exactly when they were in senior positions of a political lobbying group which had allowed itself to be influenced by a group of sex cases.

No doubt they were bright and well intentioned, but that does not mean that they were not naive and woefully lacking in perspective.

Perspective comes from experience and that is why they are now apologising (to a greater or lesser extent) for not recognising then quite what they were involved in.

Two things. One, whatever went on, the liberties of peadophiles were not actually improved. No one made it legal or lowered the age of consent. No kid got kidnapped thanks to Harriet Harman. It's just another moral panic, another example of mock offendedness, though this time carried out by the same people who accuse Labour of it in spades.

Secondly you become eligable to vote at 18. There is not ONE sitting MP under 30. Not one. Yet they have vital experience, that of actually being as young as a huge demographic of voters. Why should anyone who qualifies for a Club 18-30 holiday have to vote for a professional politician in their 50s?

Oh and a third thing actually. Much of the experience the older generation have is experience of failure.