P.I.E

[carlzeiss]

[yt]ORU5x-ryedU&feature=youtu.be[/YT]

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I have tried to be objective on this issue,i have read what the Mail have said with regards to Harman(and the other two) and the NCCL and i have read Harmans full statement.It seems Harman is twisting matters somewhat,she is denying claims against her that were not alleged against her in the first place.It does seem looking in that all she has done is kept as silent as possible on the matter for as long as possible then played "Anti Daily Mail Card" which is bound to get blind support.Why for example has she not played the "Anti Telegraph Card",they started this story well before the DM took it up.I also dont believe Harman has ever promoted or supported paedophilia,the issue surrounds her choice to work for an organisation that had ties to another organisation that did,which she knew about and therefore calls into question her judgement.

I think she has handled the situation very badly indeed,a politician of her caliber really should have been able to handle this better.

They never do. It's why I will never vote for Labour again. Glad there are other options now on the table becuase I just find parts of Labour to be so hypocritical. Who exactly do Labour represent these days?

 

[Machiavelli]

I certainly don't think she did support or promote it either, nor does the paper I suspect,.......but just as the Guardian would jump on a Conservative politician in the same circumstances, the Mail is making mischief....its their job.

If you think that The Guardian and The Mail operate in a similar manner -- the one promoting Labour while exposing Tories, and vice-versa -- I fear for your understanding. As one example, despite declining revenues and an extremely difficult situation for it, The Guardian has run a series of excellent campaigns -- not enough, granted, but my previous point explains this -- over the last few years, like exposing the issue of tax avoidance/evasion and unearthing phone hacking and other malign media procedures. These are the result of serious -- and expensive -- investigative journalism, which is in danger of dying out in our contemporary world. Can you name one piece of investigative journalism that The Mail has provided us with over the last few years? Can you name one it has provided ever? It's tactic is merely to whip up popular sentiment playing to some people's deepest prejudices and ignorance, and the current campaign on paedophilia is a prime example of that.

 

[Hotchilidog]

I certainly don't think she did support or promote it either, nor does the paper I suspect,.......but just as the Guardian would jump on a Conservative politician in the same circumstances, the Mail is making mischief....its their job.

The Mail was clearly trying to associate Harriet Harman with support for pedophiles. I'm certain the Mail does not believe that (but it does nothing to stop others believing it), but what they have done is hardly mischief making it is an unfounded personal attack designed to smear a political opponent. Some of this mud is going to stick with some people regardless of the facts, so job done.

It's an insult to quality investigative journalism.

 

[User removed 4]

Pathetic smear campaign from a "newspaper" that publishes pictures of 12 year olds in bikinis.

Really ?? this is from the telegraph : http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...et-Harmans-defence-over-paedophile-links.html

 

[User removed 4]

Make of this what you will.

https://www.scriptonitedaily.com/20...nised-paedophile-network-leads-back-to-no-10/

Coming from someone who defends proven,convicted nonces just because they're in a band he likes , this post, based on rumour , disgusts me , you fkin hypocrite

 

[Machiavelli]

Of course, papers live and die by the validity or otherwise of the stories they print and methods they use to get them.........its called free speech, its called a free press.......if they cock up that's fine, they pay whatever price is due.

All my comments, are simply saying that those questions ( and that's what they are)..... are entitled to be asked of any public figure, just because it's the DM does that mean they are less valid?......... the Telegraph, and in fact the Independent also ran the story early too.

However it all boils down to politically motivated mischief making, and I am amazed that those of you purporting to be well informed, can't see that. I don't see the same level of angst when a Conservative MP is targeted by the Guardian, you know, that model of political neutrality.

Isn't it the case that the motivation of The Mail is to undermine politics to a considerable extent (which amounts to neo/liberalism), without abolishing it (which would amount to anarchy)? That way, Rothermere and Dacre won't have their squillions hidden away in tax havens redistributed towards far more worthwhile projects.

 

[Machiavelli]

Coming from someone who defends proven,convicted nonces just because they're in a band he likes , this post, based on rumour , disgusts me , you fkin hypocrite

You're quite apparently a really nice person.

 

[somerset]

Isn't it the case that the motivation of The Mail is to undermine politics to a considerable extent (which amounts to neo/liberalism), without abolishing it (which would amount to anarchy)? That way, Rothermere and Dacre won't have their squillions hidden away in tax havens redistributed towards far more worthwhile projects.

I can't see how anarchy\abolish politics is going to miraculously contribute to the clawing back of said 'squillions',..............I also don't or wont argue that papers in general consider themselves above the law\system\government..... its the nature if the beast, we want them to ask the hard questions, however unpalatable, but we also in general, scoff at them when they do.

 

[The Large One]

Coming from someone who defends proven,convicted nonces just because they're in a band he likes , this post, based on rumour , disgusts me , you fkin hypocrite

'Proven, convicted nonces'. (more than one?)

Which nonces did you have in mind? If you're thinking of Pete Townshend, he has no conviction for paedophilia, child abuse, child pornography access or anything of that kind. In fact, no evidence has been offered that he ever has been involved in that.

Similarly, you bang on about the Townshend rumours, yet dismiss accusations of child abuse, despite some of the perpetrators having already been imprisoned for it, and it being part of an ongoing police investigation, merely as 'rumour' as it 'disgusts' you. Interesting.

 

[Machiavelli]

I can't see how anarchy\abolish politics is going to miraculously contribute to the clawing back of said 'squillions',..............I also don't or wont argue that papers in general consider themselves above the law\system\government..... its the nature if the beast, we want them to ask the hard questions, however unpalatable, but we also in general, scoff at them when they do.

You quite apparently haven't understood my point about anarchy, which was quite clearly explained.
Do you really think that this Harman/PIE/Liberty affair is a 'hard question'?

 

[Machiavelli]

'Proven, convicted nonces'. (more than one?)

Which nonces did you have in mind? If you're thinking of Pete Townshend, he has no conviction for paedophilia, child abuse, child pornography access or anything of that kind. In fact, no evidence has been offered that he ever has been involved in that.

Similarly, you bang on about the Townshend rumours, yet dismiss accusations of child abuse, despite some of the perpetrators having already been imprisoned for it, and it being part of an ongoing police investigation, merely as 'rumour' as it 'disgusts' you. Interesting.

You're being too kind, although this is admirable. Just like The Mail, this poster -- who, unlike you, is not a visible presence as an Albion fan, to the best of my limited knowledge on such matters -- indulges in smear tactics/guilt by association based on the most tenuous connections. The best we can do is expose such things, and hope enough other posters can see through it.

 

[somerset]

You quite apparently haven't understood my point about anarchy, which was quite clearly explained.
Do you really think that this Harman/PIE/Liberty affair is a 'hard question'?

Pedantry is a really poor response, you do specialise in it, well that and being patronising.

However, I will leave you to stew now, I have work to do, and I feel I have made my points, no need to flog a dead one.

 

[Albion Dan]

 

[Machiavelli]

Pedantry is a really poor response, you do specialise in it, well that and being patronising.

However, I will leave you to stew now, I have work to do, and I feel I have made my points, no need to flog a dead one.

It's not clear to what your accusation of pedantry is referring to, although I grant that I'm performing such a role. I also grant that, on occasions, being patronising is something of a speciality round these parts, but it often has to be encouraged.
I also agree that you've made your points, it's just that they don't stand up to scrutiny ... dons pedantic and patronising persona. AGAIN.

 

[Machiavelli]

View attachment 51551

On one level, I think this post could merely be engaging in Mail-esque tactics but, on the level of the copyright, it's clearly quite a delicious addition to this thread.

 

[BLOCK F]

The NCCL/PIE story is surely old news,but Harriet Harman has handled it very badly;a fact that has been acknowledged even by the Guardian so I understand.
In the 70's the NCCL was full of the likes of daft buggers like Harman and Patricia Hewitt holding all manner of 'right-on' views of the time.In an article I read at the weekend by an ex employee of NCCL she said...'We were all young and daft as brushes'.Quite so.
Nevertheless,it must provide certain members of the population with a degree of schadenfreude to see the old harridan take some stick,because as sure as eggs are eggs,if it had been 3 prominent tories with past links to NCCL,instead of Harman,Dromey and Hewitt,then our smug,righteous leftie friends would have been foaming at the mouth with outrage and indignation.

 

[User removed 4]

On one level, I think this post could merely be engaging in Guardianesque tactics but, on the level of the copyright, it's clearly quite a delicious addition to this thread.

 

[BLOCK F]

View attachment 51554


On one level, I think this post could merely be engaging in Guardianesque tactics but, on the level of the copyright, it's clearly quite a delicious addition to this thread.

Ha!Game set and match , Bushy.
Had a good chuckle at your 'return of service'.

 

[User removed 4]

'Proven, convicted nonces'. (more than one?)

Which nonces did you have in mind? If you're thinking of Pete Townshend, he has no conviction for paedophilia, child abuse, child pornography access or anything of that kind. In fact, no evidence has been offered that he ever has been involved in that.

Similarly, you bang on about the Townshend rumours, yet dismiss accusations of child abuse, despite some of the perpetrators having already been imprisoned for it, and it being part of an ongoing police investigation, merely as 'rumour' as it 'disgusts' you. Interesting.

Sorry my mistake, Townshend ACCEPTED a caution for accessing child pornography to 'spare himself the stress of waiting for a trial ' , I know for a FACT if I was accused of the offence and I was innocent, I'd do my utmost to clear my name , but then again I wouldn't look at child porn full stop , even if I was 'researching' a book.