Daily Mail smear campaign

First topic message reminder :

Against Harriet Harman appears to be faltering .

Curiously, in spite of the continued campaign against her, not 1 comment against these sordid stories has been posted.
Either on-one is interested, or more likely there is a strict ban and censorship taking place.
Oddly , not a single word from Dacre in today's copy.
I think their smear has been rumbled.



Silence: In 2012, Harriet Harman said that the whole truth must come out about Jimmy Savile. How strange then, that she is so reluctant to reveal anything at all about her past links with the Paedophile Information Exchange
RightMinds  
Article
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: A silence that grows ever more deafening
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT All By This Author - 24/02/2014 00:46:36

In a 2012 radio interview about the Jimmy Savile sex scandal, Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman stressed the vital importance of unearthing the whole truth.
Harriet Harman
News  
Article
Harman wasn't so quiet on Savile scandal: Deputy Labour leader toured TV and radio stations
By JACK DOYLE,SAM GREENHILL All By This Author - 24/02/2014 00:29:14

Harriet Harman may be reluctant to speak out now, but when the Jimmy Savile scandal exploded in 2012, she loudly demanded a judge-led inquiry.
Labour trio
News  
Article
How much longer can paedophilia apologists stay silent? Even Left demands answers from senior Labour trio over links to child sex group
By GUY ADAMS,TIM SHIPMAN All By This Author - 23/02/2014 23:50:28

Pressure is mounting on Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman and others to explain their links with a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children.
Demetrious Panton suffered terrible abuse at a children's home in Islington in the late 1970s
News  
Article
Apologists for paedophilia: As the Mail exposes more links between senior Labour figures and a vile paedophile group, one man who was abused as a child asks them: why won't you admit you were wrong?
By GUY ADAMS All By This Author - 22/02/2014 13:19:52

The childhood of Demetrious Panton ended one night in July 1978, a few days before his 11th birthday. That was when a man called Bernie Bain, who ran a care home in North London where Panton lived, knocked on the door of his dormitory.
AY99621640image001 copy.jpg
Femail  
Article
'A bigot in a bra!': A male writer responds to Esther Walker's 'toxic and chauvinistic' admission that she doesn’t want to give birth to a little boy
By PETER LLOYD All By This Author - 22/02/2014 10:40:41

This week, Esther Walker - wife of celebrity food critic Giles Coren - wrote a vile, lacerating opinion piece about her casual sexism towards men and boys.
Kate Moss walks to collect the award for best male solo artist on behalf of David Bowie at the Brits
RightMinds  
Article
PLATELL'S PEOPLE: Drink, drugs and the Brits 'role models'
By AMANDA PLATELL All By This Author - 22/02/2014 02:12:25

What a shameful show they put on. What we were served up was not a celebration of the best in music but a sordid and self-indulgent orgy of booze and drugs.
Patricia Hewitt, Labour minister
RightMinds  
Article
DAILY MAIL COMMENT: The Labour elite who gave succour to paedophiles
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT All By This Author - 22/02/2014 01:24:35

Today the paper publishes an exposé of the frankly disgusting views on paedophilia held in the 1970s and 1980s by people who rose to the highest ranks in the modern Labour Party.
Top Tory sources have said that many people fear making waves in the commons for fear of scaring their public and not being re-elected
RightMinds  
Article
SIMON HEFFER: Ministers who put their jobs before their country
By SIMON HEFFER All By This Author - 22/02/2014 01:19:12


Defence Secretary Philip Hammond (inset) looked sheepish after wrongly referring to Liz Kendall (left) as Rachel Reeves (right) on the BBC1 show.
'Time for BBC2's Newsnight - and editor Ian Katz, formerly of the Guardian, has excelled himself. Jeremy Paxman is dressed as Whack-O! actor Jimmy Edwards with a cane'

RightMinds  
Article
Surprise, surprise, the BBC has ignored our expose of Labour's links to a child sex scandal. QUENTIN LETTS imagines its reaction if those involved were Tory
By QUENTIN LETTS All By This Author - 21/02/2014 04:53:49

From Today to Newsnight, the Beeb’s in a frenzy. Can the evil Tories survive this scandal?
Characteristically, Harriet did rouse herself to airily dismiss the revelations as 'rubbish'. However, that is nowhere near good enough
News  
Article
JAN MOIR: How can Harriet call herself a feminist after this?
By JAN MOIR All By This Author - 21/02/2014 01:03:09

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman (pictured), her husband Jack Dromey and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt have yet to say anything significant about the links, detailed in this newspaper in recent days.
Harriet Harman last month
News  
Article
Inexcusable: Leading abuse charity demands apology from Labour trio with links to vile paedophile group
By GUY ADAMS,MICHAEL SEAMARK All By This Author - 21/02/2014 00:27:40

Harriet Harman, her husband, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt were key figures in the National Council for Civil Liberties when it forged links with the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.
Harriet Harman: Legal officer of the NCCL, now Labour Deputy Leader
News  
Article
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 All By This Author - 21/02/2014 00:26:16

A letter written to a Left-wing magazine by a Londoner who described himself as ‘both a paedophile and gay’, complained that laws forbidding him from having sex with children 'interfere with my life and civil liberties'.
Romanian migrants arriving at Luton Airport on the first day since the lifting of travel restrictions. MPs Mark Reckless (left) and Keith Vaz welcome Victor Spirescu, 30
RightMinds  
Article
Cut migration to give our young a chance
By DAILY MAIL COMMENT All By This Author - 20/02/2014 01:46:16

The number of under-25s out of work, the great majority of them British-born, remains disturbingly high at 917,000.
Harriet Harman: Legal officer of the NCCL, now Labour Deputy Leader
News  
Article
Vital questions these Labour apologists for child sex MUST now answer
By GUY ADAMS All By This Author - 20/02/2014 00:32:00

This week the Mail published a major exposé revealing how three senior Labour Party figures gave their support in the 1970s to a vile organisation that tried to legalise sex with children.
Harriet Harman
News  
Article
Now say sorry! Ex-Yard chief calls on Labour trio to admit backing paedophilia was a 'huge mistake'
By STEPHEN WRIGHT,MICHAEL SEAMARK All By This Author - 20/02/2014 00:25:50

Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt all held key roles in the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Look they dont want to admit that their golden party is anything less than perfect and fail to realize that if these 3 just stood up and said we were young and failed to properly assess the implications of our decisions and are very sorry then everyone would have a hell of a lot more respect for them as individuals and as a party

If that's directed at people on here then that's just nonsense because what I have said and others have said is that anyone who has supported paedophiles in any way should be run out of office and if they have done that then apologies are not enough.
You are the one avoiding looking at the bigger picture over what has been going on for decades and you couldn't even bring yourself to add support to Tom Watson's  call for action to flush out the truth about what has been going on for decades.
And it's a bit much to accept lectures from you in the way that you and Flap and a few others  over on the Saville apologist site were prepared to defend Saville and Cyril Smith almost to your dying breaths.
Are you sorry now that you did that? Do you apologise?

It was directed at some on here who have not said the same as you at all - at those who are adamant the whole thing is just a smear campaign with no truth in it whatsoever.

As for the bigger picture you seem to be trying to use that to obfuscate the details of a smaller section as though they are not important.

As I have stated elsewhere as far as these 3 go I have never thought or suggested they had anything to do with actual paedophilia and there should be no question of them being sanctioned for that. My concern is that they like every other human being did in the past make mistakes and suffer errors of judgement. The most important quality in any person seeking to have power over the country is the ability to recognize and learn from previous errors - everyone makes errors and the best people are the ones who learn from them. Their refusal to acknowledge what went on, their insistence they did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize is a terrible thing not because of the subject but because in 2 years time they wish to be mandated to run this country and by insisting they did nothing wrong they are demonstrating they are absolutely unfit to do so.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:Look they dont want to admit that their golden party is anything less than perfect and fail to realize that if these 3 just stood up and said we were young and failed to properly assess the implications of our decisions and are very sorry then everyone would have a hell of a lot more respect for them as individuals and as a party

If that's directed at people on here then that's just nonsense because what I have said and others have said is that anyone who has supported paedophiles in any way should be run out of office and if they have done that then apologies are not enough.
You are the one avoiding looking at the bigger picture over what has been going on for decades and you couldn't even bring yourself to add support to Tom Watson's  call for action to flush out the truth about what has been going on for decades.
And it's a bit much to accept lectures from you in the way that you and Flap and a few others  over on the Saville apologist site were prepared to defend Saville and Cyril Smith almost to your dying breaths.
Are you sorry now that you did that? Do you apologise?

It was directed at some on here who have not said the same as you at all - at those who are adamant the whole thing is just a smear campaign with no truth in it whatsoever.

As for the bigger picture you seem to be trying to use that to obfuscate the details of a smaller section as though they are not important.

As I have stated elsewhere as far as these 3 go I have never thought or suggested they had anything to do with actual paedophilia and there should be no question of them being sanctioned for that.  My concern is that they like every other human being did in the past make mistakes and suffer errors of judgement.  The most important quality in any person seeking to have power over the country is the ability to recognize and learn from previous errors - everyone makes errors and the best people are the ones who learn from them.  Their refusal to acknowledge what went on, their insistence they did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize is a terrible thing not because of the subject but because in 2 years time they wish to be mandated to run this country and by insisting they did nothing wrong they are demonstrating they are absolutely unfit to do so.

And who on here has said anything different from what I am saying - Names?

So all you are interested in is getting people to jump through hoops set by the Daily Mail even though the Daily Mail is calling them apologists for paedophiles. Your words appear to suggest that they are not apologists for paedophiles......correct?.

And are you sorry for defending Saville and Smith in the past as did Flap and also a few others in the other place. Are you sorry?

Better copy it to his close "Oh I agree, Hugh".

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It was directed at some on here who have not said the same as you at all - at those who are adamant the whole thing is just a smear campaign with no truth in it whatsoever.

As for the bigger picture you seem to be trying to use that to obfuscate the details of a smaller section as though they are not important.

As I have stated elsewhere as far as these 3 go I have never thought or suggested they had anything to do with actual paedophilia and there should be no question of them being sanctioned for that.  My concern is that they like every other human being did in the past make mistakes and suffer errors of judgement.  The most important quality in any person seeking to have power over the country is the ability to recognize and learn from previous errors - everyone makes errors and the best people are the ones who learn from them.  Their refusal to acknowledge what went on, their insistence they did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize is a terrible thing not because of the subject but because in 2 years time they wish to be mandated to run this country and by insisting they did nothing wrong they are demonstrating they are absolutely unfit to do so.

And who on here has said anything different from what I am saying - Names?

So all you are interested in is getting people to jump through hoops set by the Daily Mail even though the Daily Mail is calling them apologists for paedophiles. Your words appear to suggest that they are not apologists for paedophiles......correct?.

And are you sorry for defending Saville and Smith in the past as did Flap and also a few others in the other place. Are you sorry?

You can read as well as I can who is saying what.

I am saying they were apologists for paedophiles - that was not and is not illegal and was never a direct involvement.

I am hoping to hell that they are no longer apologists - the only way I will know this is if they stand up and admit making errors of judgement, apologize and say they have learned (saying they have learned without apologizing is worthless as any parent with a child refusing to apologize for whacking their brother while saying they have learned not to do it again to will know). While they refuse to apologize I do not know if they still are paedophile apologists or not.

I still am of the position that dead people cannot be prosecuted and should not be accused because they cannot defend themselves and I still believe the accusations of Saville are possibly putting us on a very slippery slope that will in future mean families are destroyed by unproven unprovable allegations against newly deceased. I am also left disturbed by the cases being prosecuted that are being found not guilty although the press seems happy to treat them as "they did it but it could not be proven". I see Cyrill Smith as slightly different as the records of the investigation were far more detailed and there does seem to have been some deliberate interfering by the authorities. Did Savile abuse children? If I answer that from the position of a juror ruling on a trial my answer would be I think he probably did but it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I said from the beginning that if anyone is bought to court over this it should be the police and authorities who did nothing when it was reported - that kept him protected.

I am not sorry for defending the dead. I am bloody sorry the dead I am defending is Savile. I want to give an easy pat answer to this but I cannot - he should have been prosecuted while alive. He should not be accused after death.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

It was directed at some on here who have not said the same as you at all - at those who are adamant the whole thing is just a smear campaign with no truth in it whatsoever.

As for the bigger picture you seem to be trying to use that to obfuscate the details of a smaller section as though they are not important.

As I have stated elsewhere as far as these 3 go I have never thought or suggested they had anything to do with actual paedophilia and there should be no question of them being sanctioned for that.  My concern is that they like every other human being did in the past make mistakes and suffer errors of judgement.  The most important quality in any person seeking to have power over the country is the ability to recognize and learn from previous errors - everyone makes errors and the best people are the ones who learn from them.  Their refusal to acknowledge what went on, their insistence they did nothing wrong and have nothing to apologize is a terrible thing not because of the subject but because in 2 years time they wish to be mandated to run this country and by insisting they did nothing wrong they are demonstrating they are absolutely unfit to do so.

And who on here has said anything different from what I am saying - Names?

So all you are interested in is getting people to jump through hoops set by the Daily Mail even though the Daily Mail is calling them apologists for paedophiles. Your words appear to suggest that they are not apologists for paedophiles......correct?.

And are you sorry for defending Saville and Smith in the past as did Flap and also a few others in the other place. Are you sorry?

You can read as well as I can who is saying what.

I am saying they were apologists for paedophiles - that was not and is not illegal and was never a direct involvement.

I am hoping to hell that they are no longer apologists - the only way I will know this is if they stand up and admit making errors of judgement, apologize and say they have learned (saying they have learned without apologizing is worthless as any parent with a child refusing to apologize for whacking their brother while saying they have learned not to do it again to will know).  While they refuse to apologize I do not know if they still are paedophile apologists or not.

I still am of  the position that dead people cannot be prosecuted and should not be accused because they cannot defend themselves and I still believe the accusations of Saville  are possibly putting us on a very slippery slope that will in future mean families are destroyed by unproven unprovable allegations against newly deceased.  I am also left disturbed by the cases being prosecuted that are being found not guilty although the press seems happy to  treat them as "they did it but it could not be proven".  I see Cyrill Smith as slightly different as the records of the investigation were far more detailed and there does seem to have been some deliberate interfering by the authorities.  Did Savile abuse children?  If I answer that from the position of a juror ruling on a trial my answer would be I think he probably did but it is not proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  I said from the beginning that if anyone is bought to court over this it should be the police and authorities who did nothing when it was reported - that kept him protected.

I am not sorry for defending the dead.  I am bloody sorry the dead I am defending is Savile.  I want to give an easy pat answer to this but I cannot - he should have been prosecuted while alive.  He should not be accused after death.

No, you were not saying they were apologists, you were saying they had done nothing wrong but they were just silly at the time.

I heard Andrew Pierce on the radio earlier today and he said that Savile was the worst paedophile that this can country has ever seen. He's from the Daily Mai.

Yet here you are defending Savile by saying that nothing has been proven when there is a mountain of evidence against him which even the Daily Mail isn't disputing.

So are you sorry that in spite of all the evidence that you have defended this evil man?

I rather think IRN that what sphinx is defending is NOT Saville, but rather an important and necessary point of law.
that is ...the dead CANNOT be prosecuted. What has happened is that the media has set out to make itself judge and jury over what he did, when no such power should EVER be in the hands of the media.

The evidence may well exist, BUT...it CANNOT be tried by a court of law (correctly so) and therefor cannot be used to make any judgement of guilt or innocence, and the media is on NO position to pronounce any such judgement.

victorismyhero wrote:I rather think IRN that what sphinx is defending is NOT Saville, but rather an important and necessary point of law.
that is ...the dead CANNOT be prosecuted. What has happened is that the media has set out to make itself judge and jury over what he did, when no such power should EVER be in the hands of the media.

I know what she is saying but that's not quite the line she was taking when she was discussing this on ADO where she was saying that Savile despite the overwhelming evidence against him he was innocent and nothing could be proved against him without a trial taking place. Even the Daily Mail condemns the man but she couldn't bring herself to do that and she still cant.

victorismyhero wrote:The evidence may well exist, BUT...it CANNOT be tried by a court of law (correctly so) and therefor cannot be used to make any judgement of guilt or innocence, and the media is on NO position to pronounce any such judgement.

Well that's what the Daily Mail are doing right isn't it - judging people?

Irn Bru wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:The evidence may well exist, BUT...it CANNOT be tried by a court of law (correctly so) and therefor cannot be used to make any judgement of guilt or innocence, and the media is on NO position to pronounce any such judgement.

Well that's what the Daily Mail are doing right isn't it - judging people?

Yes , BUT...the people involved are I beleive alive, and thus able to defend themselves...if their defence is lacking then...........

however I do agree, the media's role in this is wrong...It should present the FACTS, devoid of commentary and especially devoid of "opinion"...

victorismyhero wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

victorismyhero wrote:The evidence may well exist, BUT...it CANNOT be tried by a court of law (correctly so) and therefor cannot be used to make any judgement of guilt or innocence, and the media is on NO position to pronounce any such judgement.

Well that's what the Daily Mail are doing right isn't it - judging people?

Yes , BUT...the people involved are I beleive alive, and thus able to defend themselves...if their defence is lacking then...........

however I do agree, the media's role in this is wrong...It should present the FACTS, devoid of commentary and especially devoid of "opinion"...

Yes, but Sphinx says that Savile should not be accused after death which is astounding and I'm sure all the victims that suffered because of this evil man will be furious that despite all the evidence against him that anyone could come out with such a statement. I can't really accept that when someone dies that their crimes die with them and no more should be said about it.

All you dirty old looney left wingers....you know what Harriet & co have done.But you'll do what all left wingers do....deny it & hide it.

You dirty old buggers.

Shady wrote:All you dirty old looney left wingers....you know what Harriet & co have done.But you'll do what all left wingers do....deny it & hide it.

You dirty old buggers.

Hello Shady. They are truly so enthralled by their leaders they would support them if they were found in gang bangs with Jimmy Saville. It is the nature of Labour supporters they don't think they simply do as their party tells them.

Tory Party leaflet - use Elm House B&B - a place where children were abused.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-brothel-elm-guest-house-1558001

Sassy wrote:Tory Party leaflet - use Elm House B&B - a place where children were abused.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-brothel-elm-guest-house-1558001

They don't appear to want to discuss that.

Sassy wrote:Tory Party leaflet - use Elm House B&B - a place where children were abused.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-brothel-elm-guest-house-1558001

PIE was set up to campaign for an acceptance and understanding of paedophilia by producing controversial documents. But its formally defined aims also included giving advice, legal defence and counsel to paedophiles who wanted it, and providing a means for paedophiles to contact one another. PIE also dealt in large amounts of Child pornography between members for a hefty cut, and provided contact details for vulnerable Children.

By the mid 70s PIE , PAL and GLF members were in charge of Children’s Care Homes in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney under New Labour Councils with the predictable outcome that they became the most horrific places of Child sex abuse , rape , pornography and murder. Due to their ability to procure vulnerable Children PIE/PAL/GLF wielded a lot of political power and were fully protected by the Metropolitan Police. Any questions were met with allegations of homophobia...

http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/p-i-e-paedophile-information-exchange-exposed-part-two/

Tess. wrote:

Sassy wrote:Tory Party leaflet - use Elm House B&B - a place where children were abused.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-brothel-elm-guest-house-1558001

PIE was set up to campaign for an acceptance and understanding of paedophilia by producing controversial documents. But its formally defined aims also included giving advice, legal defence and counsel to paedophiles who wanted it, and providing a means for paedophiles to contact one another. PIE also dealt in large amounts of Child pornography between members for a hefty cut, and provided contact details for vulnerable Children.

By the mid 70s PIE , PAL and GLF members were in charge of Children’s Care Homes in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney under New Labour Councils with the predictable outcome that they became the most horrific places of Child sex abuse , rape , pornography and murder. Due to their ability to procure vulnerable Children PIE/PAL/GLF wielded a lot of political power and were fully protected by the Metropolitan Police. Any questions were met with allegations of homophobia...

http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/p-i-e-paedophile-information-exchange-exposed-part-two/

You've been posting that fake picture quite a lot recently, haven't you dogface.

Suggestion for a new avatar, suits you!

 ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

Catman wrote:

Tess. wrote:

PIE was set up to campaign for an acceptance and understanding of paedophilia by producing controversial documents. But its formally defined aims also included giving advice, legal defence and counsel to paedophiles who wanted it, and providing a means for paedophiles to contact one another. PIE also dealt in large amounts of Child pornography between members for a hefty cut, and provided contact details for vulnerable Children.

By the mid 70s PIE , PAL and GLF members were in charge of Children’s Care Homes in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney under New Labour Councils with the predictable outcome that they became the most horrific places of Child sex abuse , rape , pornography and murder. Due to their ability to procure vulnerable Children PIE/PAL/GLF wielded a lot of political power and were fully protected by the Metropolitan Police. Any questions were met with allegations of homophobia...

http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/p-i-e-paedophile-information-exchange-exposed-part-two/

You've been posting that fake picture quite a lot recently, haven't you dogface.

Suggestion for a new avatar, suits you!

  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

It's not fake, but in view of your very compelling and informative argument I shan't continue with the debate. Have you thought of being a barrister? You could represent the paedos in the Labour Party. With your stunning IQ and eloquence they should all get what they deserve.

Tess. wrote:

Sassy wrote:Tory Party leaflet - use Elm House B&B - a place where children were abused.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/paedo-brothel-elm-guest-house-1558001

PIE was set up to campaign for an acceptance and understanding of paedophilia by producing controversial documents. But its formally defined aims also included giving advice, legal defence and counsel to paedophiles who wanted it, and providing a means for paedophiles to contact one another. PIE also dealt in large amounts of Child pornography between members for a hefty cut, and provided contact details for vulnerable Children.

By the mid 70s PIE , PAL and GLF members were in charge of Children’s Care Homes in Islington, Lambeth and Hackney under New Labour Councils with the predictable outcome that they became the most horrific places of Child sex abuse , rape , pornography and murder. Due to their ability to procure vulnerable Children PIE/PAL/GLF wielded a lot of political power and were fully protected by the Metropolitan Police. Any questions were met with allegations of homophobia...

http://cigpapers.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/p-i-e-paedophile-information-exchange-exposed-part-two/

You missed out the bit about Leon Brittan.

Tess. wrote:

Catman wrote:

You've been posting that fake picture quite a lot recently, haven't you dogface.

Suggestion for a new avatar, suits you!

  ://?roflmao?/: ://?roflmao?/: 

It's not fake, but in view of your very compelling and informative argument I shan't continue with the debate. Have you thought of being a barrister?  You could represent the paedos in the Labour Party.  With your stunning IQ and eloquence they should all get what they deserve.

It's a fake used by the Christian right to smear Peter Tatchell, the man pictured, and instrumental in the fight for gay human rights in this country.

He's one of the few people, to have received the blue plaque award for services to human rights whilst alive.

Try again, you nasty little homophobic dogface.

Yep, Leon Brittan and the case of the missing papers showing the government funding of PIE.

Catman wrote:

Tess. wrote:
It's not fake, but in view of your very compelling and informative argument I shan't continue with the debate. Have you thought of being a barrister?  You could represent the paedos in the Labour Party.  With your stunning IQ and eloquence they should all get what they deserve.

It's a fake used by the Christian right to smear Peter Tatchell, the man pictured, and instrumental in the fight for gay human rights in this country.

He's one of the few people, to have received the blue plaque award for services to human rights whilst alive.

Try again, you nasty little homophobic dogface.

How the hell am I homophobic? I've never posted anything that can be remotely construed as homophobic. Just because I criticise this appalling paedophile group and Tatchell's involvement in it doesn't make me homophobic, but does explain (see my earlier post) how they got away with as much as they did, because it was deemed homophobic to challenge anything about them. Another case of PC causing harm to vulnerable children.

Interesting article written by Owen Jones who will surely earn a place high up in the Labour party one day - courtesy of Scrat.

https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/daily-mail-mailonline-stop-the-daily-mail-sexualising-children

owen jones is gay isn't he,

So what.
Dave Cameron is a vagina, didn't stop him becoming leader of the cuntservative party.

I only asked,he votes liebor doesn't he?

Just looking in to see if my Speaker's are doing their job, but all looks not too bad at the moment, so perhaps no intervention needed right now , well done folks, remember to keep it nice and calm like this.

Remember now, continued over excitement can be bad for one's health.

I'll call back later just to check all is still calm

  

Nicko and I are getting on ok, polite debate , opposing views but not getting personal.
Proper debate.

nicko wrote:I only asked,he votes liebor doesn't he?

I presume so, Nicko, but as it is a secret ballot, only Sun and NotW journos will have access to that sort of information, for a fee in grubby envelope and a couple of hacked phones.
I confess I cannot abide smears from any side, except where there is clear evidence of wrongdoing or criminality, when exposure vis in the public interest
What I do abhor are orchestrated and ongoing smear campaigns such as the DM is carrying out against the Labour party.
Don't be surprised for HH to take legal action, and for the PCC (worthless shower) to take a hard look too.

Hewitt Apologises For Links To Paedophile Group



Former Cabinet minister Patricia Hewitt says National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) was "naive and wrong" to accept the claims of a paedophile group.

From 1974 to 1983 the Labour MP was general secretary of the civil liberties organisation, when it granted "affiliate" status to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE).

Ms Hewitt said that as general secretary she took responsibility for the mistakes that were made and apologised for having "got it wrong" on PIE, which wanted to make child sex legal.

The ex-health secretary, along with Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey - who also worked at the NCCL - have been accused by the Daily Mail of being sympathetic to paedophiles.

The Daily Mail has run a series of stories about the links between the groups over the last 10 weeks and has demanded the three Labour stalwarts apologise to the victims of child sex abuse.

But Ms Hewitt said any suggestion she condoned or supported the "vile crimes" of child abusers was completely untrue.

"NCCL in the 1970s, along with many others, was naive and wrong to accept PIE's claim to be a 'campaigning and counselling organisation' that 'does not promote unlawful acts'," she said.  "As general secretary then, I take responsibility for the mistakes we made. I got it wrong on PIE and I apologise for having done so. I should have urged the executive committee to take stronger measures to protect NCCL's integrity from the activities of PIE members and sympathisers and I deeply regret not having done so."

Ms Hewitt said she had been away for the past 12 days while the controversy was raging in the the media.

http://news.sky.com/story/1218567/hewitt-apologises-for-links-to-paedophile-group

Mmm
she apologised but Harriet and hubby have not and cant really now. Interesting

Erdington MP Jack Dromey: I'm proud I fought paedophiles
25 Feb 2014 15:00

Labour MP says National Council for Civil Liberties did outstanding work and he took on 'sinister men'



MP Jack Dromey has told the Birmingham Mail he is ‘proud’ of his support for a controversial civil liberties organisation in the 1970s - and that he led the fight to stop paedophiles having any influence in it.

The Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington has come under fire over his involvement with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), now known as Liberty, which once granted “affiliate” status to a paedophile organisation.

The Paedophile Information Exchange campaigned for the abolition of the age of consent, to legalise what they called “consensual” sex between adults and children.

It was affiliated to the NCCL from 1975 to 1983. Mr Dromey was a member of the NCCL executive from 1970 to 1979 and Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman, who he later married, was employed as a legal officer from 1978 to 1982.

Mr Dromey told the Mail that he chose to stay within the civil liberties organisation and led the fight against paedophile attempts to infiltrate it.

He said: “I took them on and defeated them. They published a leaflet denouncing me.”

Asked why he didn’t simply resign from the NCCL when the Paedophile Information Exchange became involved, he said he believed it was important to stay and fight them.

“NCCL did outstanding work. That includes the early foundations of work on children’s rights. On women’s rights. On gay rights. On trade union rights.”

The NCCL led calls for a fresh inquiry into the Bloody Sunday massacre in Northern Ireland in 1972, eventually leading to David Cameron’s apology for the incident in 2010, he said.

“NCCL did great work,’’ said Mr Dromey.

“And these people infiltrated organisations. They infiltrated childcare organisations, they infiltrated educational organisations, they infiltrated social work organisations.”

“So when they did, the question was, did you stand up to them or not?

“And I stood up to them and said we’re not going to have it - we’re not going to have evil men using this organisation.”

He led opposition to attempts by the Paedophile Information Exchange to convince the NCCL to support the “rights” of paedophiles, he said - culminating in a vote at the NCCL annual meeting in 1976, which he chaired.

“There was an argument in 1976 at the Annual General Meeting and while I can’t remember the exact numbers in the vote it was something like 397 to 4 to cast them out into the darkness,’’ Mr Dromey said.

“So the idea that we should allow these sinister men, and they were sinister, to infiltrate the NCCL and then we should walk away - that was not appropriate. I stayed and took them on."

“I’m proud of the stand that I took. They are loathsome. And I’m proud of the stand that I took taking them on.”

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/jack-dromey-im-proud-fought-6744671

That was in 1976. Harriet Harman didn't join until 1978.

Steve Bell summed up the Daily Mail with this...

Have really solid ground to stand on, don't they!   

The Daily Mail campaigns against the sexualisation of children. Meanwhile, its website runs pictures of 14-year-old Kylie Jenner in a "tiny wetsuit" and "skimpy bikinis". What's wrong here?

Sex, children and Mail Online

They do it so well, don't they?

'not shy about getting dressed in public'!!!!!!!!!!

Cast into darkness but the PIE still appeared as affiliated when Harriet joined.

I couldnt give a monkeys about which party these people represent, politics like every thing else, should come second to child protection. Arguing over who did it worse it nauseating