labour scum/paedophile scum/gay scum

How three of the party's most senior figures campaigned for a vile paedophile group now being probed by police for 'abusing children on an industrial scale'

By Guy Adams

PUBLISHED: 23:32, 18 February 2014  | UPDATED: 09:03, 19 February 2014


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html#ixzz2tlCL4nRL
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


Appearing in the pages of a Left-wing magazine called Rights, it was, by any account, an extraordinary letter.

Written by one Mike Morten, who lived in London and described himself as 'Both a Paedophile and Gay', the letter complained that laws forbidding him from having sex with children ‘interfere with my life and civil liberties’.

‘Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued.
Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.
( all this from a Gay Paedophile )


‘This is a loaded and pejorative term,’ he declared. ‘It’s a totally inaccurate description of us, and a put-down, in much the same way that “pansy” is a put-down of gays and “n*****” a put-down of blacks.’


I rest my case.

Their defence is clear - "you're all Right Wing Nazi's!".

child molesters complaining at the term ' Molester' being used, what next , criminals wishing to be described as ' non-conformists' ?

Puriel wrote:
child molesters complaining at the term ' Molester' being used, what next , criminals wishing to be described as ' non-conformists' ?

I actually think this forum may go that way, Puriel - if you look at a couple of my threads, Ben doesn't like us using facts, he instead prefers tact (lies), or some sort of "softening of the truth".

BigAndy9 wrote:

Puriel wrote:
child molesters complaining at the term ' Molester' being used, what next , criminals wishing to be described as ' non-conformists' ?

I actually think this forum may go that way, Puriel - if you look at a couple of my threads, Ben doesn't like us using facts, he instead prefers tact (lies), or some sort of "softening of the truth".

the one thing they don't like up them is the truth.

all politicians are almost human so they will naturally fall for the same things humans do.

I wondered how quickly you would be on this. Really it's old news exaggerated to the max for effect. I have never liked Harriet Harman if I'm honest so have no wish to defend her. Based on this she needs o resign for the good of the party but will it stop Labour trouncing the Tories not a chance. It not even a story elsewhere.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Puriel wrote:
child molesters complaining at the term ' Molester' being used, what next , criminals wishing to be described as ' non-conformists' ?

I actually think this forum may go that way, Puriel - if you look at a couple of my threads, Ben doesn't like us using facts, he instead prefers tact (lies), or some sort of "softening of the truth".

Christ on a bike!

This is the second thread, that i've just read this afternoon where you are bloody whinging about how this forum is being run, why don't you fuck off to flop or start you own forum (as sphinx suggested) if you don't like it, where you can post what you fucking well like you muppet!

Catman wrote:

BigAndy9 wrote:

I actually think this forum may go that way, Puriel - if you look at a couple of my threads, Ben doesn't like us using facts, he instead prefers tact (lies), or some sort of "softening of the truth".

Christ on a bike!

This is the second thread, that i've just read this afternoon where you are bloody whinging about how this forum is being run, why don't you fuck off to flop or start you own forum (as sphinx suggested) if you don't like it, where you can post what you fucking well like you muppet!

Why don't you address the thread not the poster?

i'm not sure why people think it is such a big thing what politicians are found out to be perverts or worse, it happens in all political parties just the same as it happens in all walks of life.

Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued.
Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.




bloody pervert.

Puriel wrote:Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued.
Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.




bloody pervert.

just plain sick. who was it who was arguing that the age for gay consensual sex should be lower than for normal people who have consensual sex, you could see where he was heading..perverted, just perverted..

heavenly father wrote:

Puriel wrote:Consensual sex between adults and children is simply people of different age groups being nice to each other,’ it argued.
Morten then criticised recent newspaper articles which had described perpetrators of child sex offences as ‘molesters’.




bloody pervert.

just plain sick. who was it who was arguing that the age for gay consensual sex should be lower than for normal people who have consensual sex, you could see where he was heading..perverted, just perverted..

Peter Tatchell wanted free access to children.

I see that various twisted RWhingers and neo nazi sadfucks are now dredging up dailyfuckwit lies from the 1970s, and what relevance do they hold today?

Smears and lies from those who have a swastika with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads.

scrat wrote:I see that various twisted RWhingers and neo nazi sadfucks are now dredging up dailyfuckwit lies from the 1970s, and what relevance do they hold today?

Smears and lies from those who have a swastika with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads.

I see the LW scum would like to cover up their History of Paedophilia.

scrat wrote:I see that various twisted RWhingers and neo nazi sadfucks are now dredging up dailyfuckwit lies from the 1970s, and what relevance do they hold today?

Smears and lies from those who have a swastika with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads.

No they are discussing new facts uncovered recently in investigations sparked by the Jimmy Savile case.

Scrat serves his purpose best on the flap forum as site jester.

Puriel wrote:

Scrat serves his purpose best on the flap forum as site jester.

Nah they are just stuck in that horrible position of when the party they support makes a complete ass of things and they have to try and pretend it doesnt matter. It does not help that their accusations against UKIP have be comprehensively turned around with it demonstrated that it is Labour who are recruiting ex BNP members and then getting them elected to public office.

Right now they are desperately hoping someone on the right wing really really blows it so they can get everyone away from peering at distinctly blotted LW copybook.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:I see that various twisted RWhingers and neo nazi sadfucks are now dredging up dailyfuckwit lies from the 1970s, and what relevance do they hold today?

Smears and lies from those who have a swastika with "born to lose" tattooed on their foreheads.

No they are discussing new facts uncovered recently in investigations sparked by the Jimmy Savile case.

No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No they are discussing new facts uncovered recently in investigations sparked by the Jimmy Savile case.

No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

no comment on the Labour 25 ?

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No they are discussing new facts uncovered recently in investigations sparked by the Jimmy Savile case.

No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

Quote - Police are now investigating PIE as part of Operation Fernbridge, launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562518/The-truth-Labour-apologists-paedophilia-Police-probe-child-sex-group-linked-party-officials-wake-Savile.html#ixzz2tmHo08au
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

That means it is happening now, being investigated now, as a result of information that has come to light now.

Lord McAlpine was proven by police investigations to be innocent - it is possible investigations may prove the 3 Labour high up members are also innocent - we will see.

Puriel wrote:

scrat wrote:
No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

no comment on the Labour 25 ?

Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

scrat wrote:

Puriel wrote:




no comment on the Labour 25 ?

Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

the Labour party's obsession with paedophile has long since been noted.

Puriel wrote:

scrat wrote:
Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

the Labour party's obsession with paedophile has long since been noted.

Since when has paedophilia been indicated by political preference?

NemsAgain wrote:

Puriel wrote:


the Labour party's obsession with paedophile has long since been noted.

Since when has paedophilia been indicated by political preference?

it does not , but it does seem that the Labour Party are rife with them.

Puriel wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Since when has paedophilia been indicated by political preference?

it does not , but it does seem that the Labour Party are rife with them.

Puriel, society is rife with them.

NemsAgain wrote:

Puriel wrote:


it does not , but it does seem that the Labour Party are rife with them.

Puriel, society is rife with them.

Is that a poor attempt at making it NORMAL by the amount of them ?

Puriel wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Puriel, society is rife with them.

Is that a poor attempt at making it NORMAL by the amount of them ?

Dont be ridiculous. What is poor is trying to score political points over such a subject.
Shame on you   

NemsAgain wrote:

Puriel wrote:


Is that a poor attempt at making it NORMAL by the amount of them ?

Dont be ridiculous. What is poor is trying to score political points over such a subject.
Shame on you   

political points brings us back to Labour.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No they are discussing new facts uncovered recently in investigations sparked by the Jimmy Savile case.

No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

But Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey are hardly figures from "the past" are they, while these are the facts about the Lord MacAlpine affair, as reported by the BBC in it's report on his death:

In recent years, Lord McAlpine was wrongly implicated in a child abuse scandal, when the allegations were the subject of a BBC Newsnight investigation.

The programme aired allegations that a Thatcher-era politician was linked to boys that were sexually abused while in the care of a children's home in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s, though it did not name Lord McAlpine.

But several Twitter users were ordered to pay him damages after the High Court found they had tweeted libellous messages about the peer.

The BBC apologised unreservedly and settled his defamation claim for £185,000. The corporation's then director-general, George Entwistle, resigned in the wake of the allegations, after less than two months in the role.

Do you honestly think the BBC would have worded their report in that way had they believed that there was any substance at all in the allegation? They know just as well as anyone else that "you can't libel the dead" and would without a shadow of a doubt have tried to justify their original story.

You use that old MacAlpine falsehood almost every time a Labour figure is reported as being implicated in paedophilia as a means of attempting to divert attention from it.

Typical Labour lies, smears and spin. Were you instructed to post this rubbish by the daily Labour HQ briefing notes for activists?

Harriet Harman is today deputy leader of your party and Dromey is a sitting Labour MP. Possibly you are unaware of the fact, but this is no longer "the 1970s" but 2014.

As always Scrat, you're a brainwashed Labour Party mouthpiece who would stick his arse in a vat of boiling pitch if ordered by them to do so; a proven liar, cheat and fraud and a poster with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of other forum members in your desperate attempts to incriminate them.

NemsAgain wrote:

Puriel wrote:


Is that a poor attempt at making it NORMAL by the amount of them ?

Dont be ridiculous. What is poor is trying to score political points over such a subject.
Shame on you   

The point is nems at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s the Labour party actively supported groups who were fighting to make it normal. There were groups campaigning for paedophilia to be recognized as normal the way homosexuality had been recognized as normal and Labour was supporting these groups.

It now seems that some of those groups and some of todays Labour higher ups are being investigated to check whether their activities went beyond legal campaigning.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

scrat wrote:
No it's dredging up lies from the past, it's what the dailyfuckwit does, although it remained remarkably silent on The Lord "paedo" MacAlpine affair, where the establishment was providing access to sexually abusing young boys in state care, because they were being used to bribe foreign diplomats.

But Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey are hardly figures from "the past" are they, while these are the facts about the Lord MacAlpine affair, as reported by the BBC in it's report on his death:

In recent years, Lord McAlpine was wrongly implicated in a child abuse scandal, when the allegations were the subject of a BBC Newsnight investigation.

The programme aired allegations that a Thatcher-era politician was linked to boys that were sexually abused while in the care of a children's home in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s, though it did not name Lord McAlpine.

But several Twitter users were ordered to pay him damages after the High Court found they had tweeted libellous messages about the peer.

The BBC apologised unreservedly and settled his defamation claim for £185,000. The corporation's then director-general, George Entwistle, resigned in the wake of the allegations, after less than two months in the role.

Do you honestly think the BBC would have worded their report in that way had they believed that there was any substance at all in the allegation? They know just as well as anyone else that "you can't libel the dead" and would without a shadow of a doubt have tried to justify their original story.

You use that old MacAlpine falsehood almost every time a Labour figure is reported as being implicated in paedophilia as a means of attempting to divert attention from it.

Typical Labour lies, smears and spin. Were you instructed to post this rubbish by the daily Labour HQ briefing notes for activists?

Harriet Harman is today deputy leader of your party and Dromey is a sitting Labour MP. Possibly you are unaware of the fact, but this is no longer "the 1970s" but 2014.

As always Scrat, you're a brainwashed Labour Party mouthpiece who would stick his arse in a vat of boiling pitch if ordered by them to do so; a proven liar, cheat and fraud and a poster with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of other forum members in your desperate attempts to incriminate them.

Ill take that as a compliment,,,M'lud!

scrat wrote:

Puriel wrote:




no comment on the Labour 25 ?

Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

Your attempts to distance Labour from proven examples of paedophilia within the party progresses from sheer mendacity to filthy, obscene allegations about another forum member.

Truly, you have descended into the slime of the gutter.

scrat wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

But Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey are hardly figures from "the past" are they, while these are the facts about the Lord MacAlpine affair, as reported by the BBC in it's report on his death:

In recent years, Lord McAlpine was wrongly implicated in a child abuse scandal, when the allegations were the subject of a BBC Newsnight investigation.

The programme aired allegations that a Thatcher-era politician was linked to boys that were sexually abused while in the care of a children's home in Wales in the 1970s and 1980s, though it did not name Lord McAlpine.

But several Twitter users were ordered to pay him damages after the High Court found they had tweeted libellous messages about the peer.

The BBC apologised unreservedly and settled his defamation claim for £185,000. The corporation's then director-general, George Entwistle, resigned in the wake of the allegations, after less than two months in the role.

Do you honestly think the BBC would have worded their report in that way had they believed that there was any substance at all in the allegation? They know just as well as anyone else that "you can't libel the dead" and would without a shadow of a doubt have tried to justify their original story.

You use that old MacAlpine falsehood almost every time a Labour figure is reported as being implicated in paedophilia as a means of attempting to divert attention from it.

Typical Labour lies, smears and spin. Were you instructed to post this rubbish by the daily Labour HQ briefing notes for activists?

Harriet Harman is today deputy leader of your party and Dromey is a sitting Labour MP. Possibly you are unaware of the fact, but this is no longer "the 1970s" but 2014.

As always Scrat, you're a brainwashed Labour Party mouthpiece who would stick his arse in a vat of boiling pitch if ordered by them to do so; a proven liar, cheat and fraud and a poster with a proven record of deliberately editing the posts of other forum members in your desperate attempts to incriminate them.

Ill take that as a compliment,,,M'lud!

It most certainly wasn't meant as one.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

scrat wrote:
Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

Your attempts to distance Labour from proven examples of paedophilia within the party progresses from sheer mendacity to filthy, obscene allegations about another forum member.

Truly, you have descended into the slime of the gutter.

We're all in the gutter M'lud, only some of us are looking up at the stars!

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

scrat wrote:
Your obsession with paedophilia has been noted, Puerile chap, it all seems a tad unwholesome and unhealthy, but then you are a Poisonous fraggle with so much darkness in your soul!

Your attempts to distance Labour from proven examples of paedophilia within the party progresses from sheer mendacity to filthy, obscene allegations about another forum member.

Truly, you have descended into the slime of the gutter.

gutter snipe would be a compliment to Scrat.

sphinx wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Dont be ridiculous. What is poor is trying to score political points over such a subject.
Shame on you   

The point is nems at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s the Labour party actively supported groups who were fighting to make it normal.  There were groups campaigning for paedophilia to be recognized as normal the way homosexuality had been recognized as normal and Labour was supporting these groups.

It now seems that some of those groups and some of todays Labour higher ups are being investigated to check whether their activities went beyond legal campaigning.

Oh I know Sphinx we all know about Harriet Harman etc.
I dont doubt this went on and goes on.
What is distasteful to me is trying to insinuate that its a Labour only problem.
Once again, no concern for the victims or how we can stop this but plenty of pointscoring over the political persuasion of the perp, same as with race or religion. I see little genuine concern for the victims of Paedos and I dont include you in that.

scrat wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Your attempts to distance Labour from proven examples of paedophilia within the party progresses from sheer mendacity to filthy, obscene allegations about another forum member.

Truly, you have descended into the slime of the gutter.

We're all in the gutter M'lud, only some of us are looking up at the stars!

no that was from the bump on the head that led to your demise.  

NemsAgain wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The point is nems at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s the Labour party actively supported groups who were fighting to make it normal.  There were groups campaigning for paedophilia to be recognized as normal the way homosexuality had been recognized as normal and Labour was supporting these groups.

It now seems that some of those groups and some of todays Labour higher ups are being investigated to check whether their activities went beyond legal campaigning.

Oh I know Sphinx we all know about Harriet Harman etc.
I dont doubt this went on and goes on.  
What is distasteful to me is trying to insinuate that its a Labour only problem.
Once again, no concern for the victims or how we can stop this but plenty of pointscoring over the political persuasion of the perp, same as with race or religion. I see  little genuine concern for the victims of Paedos and I dont include you in that.

It was Labour who supported the attempts to normalize - and who to this day refuse to apologize, explain, or condemn their support for normalizing.

The abuse may well occur across other parties - but at least they do not try and legalize it.

Puriel wrote:

scrat wrote:
We're all in the gutter M'lud, only some of us are looking up at the stars!

no that was from the bump on the head that led to your demise.  

actually it's a quote from Oscar Wilde, but you being a thick----, would fail to grasp that!

scrat wrote:

Puriel wrote:


no that was from the bump on the head that led to your demise.  

actually it's a quote from Oscar Wilde, but you being a thick----, would fail grasp that!

not surprised that you would use a quote from a fellow pervert.

scrat wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Your attempts to distance Labour from proven examples of paedophilia within the party progresses from sheer mendacity to filthy, obscene allegations about another forum member.

Truly, you have descended into the slime of the gutter.

We're all in the gutter M'lud, only some of us are looking up at the stars!

To implythat another poster is a paedophile or even that he is "obsessed" by the subject to an "unwholesome or unhealthy" degree really is beyond the pale.

I suggest that you are not looking up at the stars, but down into the slime.

sphinx wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:

Oh I know Sphinx we all know about Harriet Harman etc.
I dont doubt this went on and goes on.  
What is distasteful to me is trying to insinuate that its a Labour only problem.
Once again, no concern for the victims or how we can stop this but plenty of pointscoring over the political persuasion of the perp, same as with race or religion. I see  little genuine concern for the victims of Paedos and I dont include you in that.

It was Labour who supported the attempts to normalize - and who to this day refuse to apologize, explain, or condemn their support for normalizing.

The abuse may well occur across other parties - but at least they do not try and legalize it.

Why are the other parties not crowing this from the roof tops then?

NemsAgain wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The point is nems at the end of the 70s and start of the 80s the Labour party actively supported groups who were fighting to make it normal.  There were groups campaigning for paedophilia to be recognized as normal the way homosexuality had been recognized as normal and Labour was supporting these groups.

It now seems that some of those groups and some of todays Labour higher ups are being investigated to check whether their activities went beyond legal campaigning.

Oh I know Sphinx we all know about Harriet Harman etc.
I dont doubt this went on and goes on.  
What is distasteful to me is trying to insinuate that its a Labour only problem.
Once again, no concern for the victims or how we can stop this but plenty of pointscoring over the political persuasion of the perp, same as with race or religion. I see  little genuine concern for the victims of Paedos and I dont include you in that.

I agree with most of what you say, Nems, but in all honesty I don't think anyone is seriously saying that this is a Labour-only problem or that the tragic impact on victims is of lesser importance than that of the perpetrator's political party allegiances. I know that I am most certainly not.

But may I simply suggest that had the news item appeared in the Daily Mirror and been about a top Conservative Party official and a sitting Tory MP, we would have seen many if not most members of this forum competing with each other in the art of hyperbole to condemn "filthy RW scum paedos."

NemsAgain wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It was Labour who supported the attempts to normalize - and who to this day refuse to apologize, explain, or condemn their support for normalizing.

The abuse may well occur across other parties - but at least they do not try and legalize it.

Why are the other parties not crowing this from the roof tops then?

My own theory would be that the other parties don't wish to become involved at an official, party hierarchy level and will be quite content for supporters to use the social media to stick the knife in, and with the usual histrionics...just as Labour were happy to allow the Scrats of this world to spread the slime (unjustified, in his case) about Lord MacAlpine.

NemsAgain wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It was Labour who supported the attempts to normalize - and who to this day refuse to apologize, explain, or condemn their support for normalizing.

The abuse may well occur across other parties - but at least they do not try and legalize it.

Why are the other parties not crowing this from the roof tops then?

What are they going to crow? That they may harbour paedophiles but dont support them?

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

scrat wrote:
We're all in the gutter M'lud, only some of us are looking up at the stars!

To implythat another poster is a paedophile or even that he is "obsessed" by the subject to an "unwholesome or unhealthy" degree really is beyond the pale.

I suggest that you are not looking up at the stars, but down into the slime.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds M'lud.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2594-are-young-black-men-born-to-be-violent-criminals#40698


just as Everyone knows that there is a suspicion of kiddie fiddling in you past and you support some of the radical ideas proposed by perverts.

_________________
GAY DOES NOT EQUAL HAPPY

Perhaps you should just go back to producing propaganda for the BNP,,,,M'lud, at least that would be representing your views honestly.

scrat wrote:

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

To implythat another poster is a paedophile or even that he is "obsessed" by the subject to an "unwholesome or unhealthy" degree really is beyond the pale.

I suggest that you are not looking up at the stars, but down into the slime.

Your hypocrisy knows no bounds M'lud.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2594-are-young-black-men-born-to-be-violent-criminals#40698


just as Everyone knows that there is a suspicion of kiddie fiddling in you past and you support some of the radical ideas proposed by perverts.

_________________
GAY DOES NOT EQUAL HAPPY

Perhaps you should just go back to producing propaganda for the BNP,,,,M'lud, at least that would be representing your views honestly.

He really is a vile old man Scrat.

You do a grand job at holding him to account!

 

What I do not get is why Labour supporters are so busy accusing the press of spreading lies instead of demanding that their party of choice cleans its act up.

As I stated earlier investigations may well show that the members concerned were innocent but that is no excuse for the party not making clear and transparent condemnation of those groups and apologizing for its part in supporting them all be it in innocence or ignorance.

Catman wrote:

scrat wrote:
Your hypocrisy knows no bounds M'lud.

https://newsfix.niceboard.com/t2594-are-young-black-men-born-to-be-violent-criminals#40698


just as Everyone knows that there is a suspicion of kiddie fiddling in you past and you support some of the radical ideas proposed by perverts.

_________________
GAY DOES NOT EQUAL HAPPY

Perhaps you should just go back to producing propaganda for the BNP,,,,M'lud, at least that would be representing your views honestly.

He really is a vile old man Scrat.

You do a grand job at holding him to account!

 

Thanks Phil,

If M'lud had a shred of decency he would offer an apology.