Why isnt the Daily Mail being ripped apart for its persistence chasing this story?

A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail was highlighting the role of senior Labour Members in the NCCL and their links to PIE. This resulted in, among other things, tides of abuse aimed at the DM accusing it of everything from muck raking to making things up with the general implication being it is a worthless inaccurate rag (despite high readership levels and looking likely to take multiple awards at the national press awards again this year).

This week the paper is chasing a much more recent story concerning the arrest of a senior government advisor and asking why this was covered up - the arrest happened on 13th February and yet has only just come to light. The paper is probing such areas as did the prime minister know before hand, and the role of the highly secretive NCA.

Why this time is there no howls about muck raking? About the non existent quality of the paper? Could it possibly be because the targets on this occasion are of a different political persuasion than a couple of weeks ago? The Mail makes no apologies for being generally right leaning but where it sees a story it digs no matter who is involved - an breadth of investigatory journalism that may explain its consistently high readership. It says far more about the people that rubbish it and attack it that they only do so when its target is Labour than it does about the paper itself.

sphinx wrote:A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail was highlighting the role of senior Labour Members in the NCCL and their links to PIE.  This resulted in, among other things, tides of abuse aimed at the DM accusing it of everything from muck raking to making things up with the general implication being it is a worthless inaccurate rag (despite high readership levels and looking likely to take multiple awards at the national press awards again this year).

This week the paper is chasing a much more recent story concerning the arrest of a senior government advisor and asking why this was covered up - the arrest happened on 13th February and yet has only just come to light.  The paper is probing such areas as did the prime minister know before hand, and the role of the highly secretive NCA.

Why this time is there no howls about muck raking?  About the non existent quality of the paper?  Could it possibly be because the targets on this occasion are of a different political persuasion than a couple of weeks ago?  The Mail makes no apologies for being generally right leaning but where it sees a story it digs no matter who is involved - an breadth of investigatory journalism that may explain its consistently high readership.  It says far more about the people that rubbish it and attack it that they only do so when its target is Labour than it does about the paper itself.

Sphinx, many do not take the daily mail seriously with this history and reputation it has...

Some issues are half truths at best, others false claims or lies..I'm surprised they have got away with some of the things they have over the years.

Just like its story claiming cannabis alone can kill people.  

Do you really not see what I mean Sphinx?

The DM only prints some truth when it suits them and their dominant RW supporters.

sphinx wrote:A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail was highlighting the role of senior Labour Members in the NCCL and their links to PIE.  This resulted in, among other things, tides of abuse aimed at the DM accusing it of everything from muck raking to making things up with the general implication being it is a worthless inaccurate rag (despite high readership levels and looking likely to take multiple awards at the national press awards again this year).

This week the paper is chasing a much more recent story concerning the arrest of a senior government advisor and asking why this was covered up - the arrest happened on 13th February and yet has only just come to light.  The paper is probing such areas as did the prime minister know before hand, and the role of the highly secretive NCA.

Why this time is there no howls about muck raking?  About the non existent quality of the paper?  Could it possibly be because the targets on this occasion are of a different political persuasion than a couple of weeks ago?  The Mail makes no apologies for being generally right leaning but where it sees a story it digs no matter who is involved - an breadth of investigatory journalism that may explain its consistently high readership.  It says far more about the people that rubbish it and attack it that they only do so when its target is Labour than it does about the paper itself.

Its patently obvious that the dailyfuckwit knew about "dave" and his advisor some time ago, then suddenly a smear story about labour and it's non-existent ties to pie from 40 years ago get trawled up as the red herring.

It comes as no surprise that the neo nazi traitor and son of a draft dodger Dacre, was asked by "dave" to produce a smoke screen, looks like the fog has cleared.

Erm...because it's true?

I forgot to mention that there are a few others that appear squeaky clean but were all vocal for the age of consent to be lowered to 10, try Lord Rix for starters.

Joy Division wrote:

sphinx wrote:A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail was highlighting the role of senior Labour Members in the NCCL and their links to PIE.  This resulted in, among other things, tides of abuse aimed at the DM accusing it of everything from muck raking to making things up with the general implication being it is a worthless inaccurate rag (despite high readership levels and looking likely to take multiple awards at the national press awards again this year).

This week the paper is chasing a much more recent story concerning the arrest of a senior government advisor and asking why this was covered up - the arrest happened on 13th February and yet has only just come to light.  The paper is probing such areas as did the prime minister know before hand, and the role of the highly secretive NCA.

Why this time is there no howls about muck raking?  About the non existent quality of the paper?  Could it possibly be because the targets on this occasion are of a different political persuasion than a couple of weeks ago?  The Mail makes no apologies for being generally right leaning but where it sees a story it digs no matter who is involved - an breadth of investigatory journalism that may explain its consistently high readership.  It says far more about the people that rubbish it and attack it that they only do so when its target is Labour than it does about the paper itself.

Sphinx, many do not take the daily mail seriously with this history and reputation it has...

Some issues are half truths at best, others false claims or lies..I'm surprised they have got away with some of the things they have over the years.

Just like its story claiming cannabis alone can kill people.  

Do you really not see what I mean Sphinx?

The DM only prints some truth when it suits them and their dominant RW supporters.

So when they report the results of a German study suggesting that the deaths of 2 young males had no obvious cause and the only anomalies in their tox results were cannabis use they are doing what exactly?

Also could you explain how their current persistence in dragging into public view the facts of the arrest that the government clearly wishes to cover up suits their dominant RW supporters?

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:A couple of weeks ago the Daily Mail was highlighting the role of senior Labour Members in the NCCL and their links to PIE.  This resulted in, among other things, tides of abuse aimed at the DM accusing it of everything from muck raking to making things up with the general implication being it is a worthless inaccurate rag (despite high readership levels and looking likely to take multiple awards at the national press awards again this year).

This week the paper is chasing a much more recent story concerning the arrest of a senior government advisor and asking why this was covered up - the arrest happened on 13th February and yet has only just come to light.  The paper is probing such areas as did the prime minister know before hand, and the role of the highly secretive NCA.

Why this time is there no howls about muck raking?  About the non existent quality of the paper?  Could it possibly be because the targets on this occasion are of a different political persuasion than a couple of weeks ago?  The Mail makes no apologies for being generally right leaning but where it sees a story it digs no matter who is involved - an breadth of investigatory journalism that may explain its consistently high readership.  It says far more about the people that rubbish it and attack it that they only do so when its target is Labour than it does about the paper itself.

Its patently obvious that the dailyfuckwit knew about "dave" and his advisor some time ago, then suddenly a smear story about labour and it's non-existent ties to pie from 40 years ago get trawled up as the red herring.

It comes as no surprise that the neo nazi traitor and son of a draft dodger Dacre, was asked by "dave" to produce a smoke screen, looks like the fog has cleared.

The problem with that theory being that it was the DM that "scooped" the arrest - if they were doing a smoke screen would they not have kept producing evidence about Labour and PIE instead of being the one paper to break the thing that was supposed to be covered up?

Croissant wrote:Helloooooo

Errrm...

hello?

Everybody ignores me, so bleed'n rude.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Its patently obvious that the dailyfuckwit knew about "dave" and his advisor some time ago, then suddenly a smear story about labour and it's non-existent ties to pie from 40 years ago get trawled up as the red herring.

It comes as no surprise that the neo nazi traitor and son of a draft dodger Dacre, was asked by "dave" to produce a smoke screen, looks like the fog has cleared.

The problem with that theory being that it was the DM that "scooped" the arrest - if they were doing a smoke screen would they not have kept producing evidence about Labour and PIE instead of being the one paper to break the thing that was supposed to be covered up?

Time is the essence, and three weeks is a long time, a vacuum to fill with smear and innuendo, sooner or later this would become public knowledge.

And let's face the facts here, it's the establishment that's being exposed for what it is and one must remember,,,,,

"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion" Lord MacAlpine.

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

The problem with that theory being that it was the DM that "scooped" the arrest - if they were doing a smoke screen would they not have kept producing evidence about Labour and PIE instead of being the one paper to break the thing that was supposed to be covered up?

Time is the essence, and three weeks is a long time, a vacuum to fill with smear and innuendo, sooner or later this would become public knowledge.

And let's face the facts here, it's the establishment that's being exposed for what it is and one must remember,,,,,

"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion" Lord MacAlpine.

Again why would the one seeking to protect be the one to reveal the facts that cause the damage?

Yes the establishment is being exposed - it is being exposed by the Mail - which makes mockery of the claims that the Mail only ever attacks the left.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
Time is the essence, and three weeks is a long time, a vacuum to fill with smear and innuendo, sooner or later this would become public knowledge.

And let's face the facts here, it's the establishment that's being exposed for what it is and one must remember,,,,,

"Spread false defeat to gain public sympathy; or false accusation and then arrange for it to be exposed as such – so the accuser will forever be treated with suspicion" Lord MacAlpine.

Again why would the one seeking to protect be the one to reveal the facts that cause the damage?

Yes the establishment is being exposed - it is being exposed by the Mail - which makes mockery of the claims that the Mail only ever attacks the left.

The dailyfuckwit spreads fear and loathing, in equal measure.

On 24 February 2014, Harman denied allegations that she had supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when the advocacy group was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Patrick Rock, 62, deputy director of the No 10 policy unit, resigned and was arrested almost three weeks ago.

First smear Labour, then leak the truth out about the "nasty party".

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Again why would the one seeking to protect be the one to reveal the facts that cause the damage?

Yes the establishment is being exposed - it is being exposed by the Mail - which makes mockery of the claims that the Mail only ever attacks the left.

The dailyfuckwit spreads fear and loathing, in equal measure.

On 24 February 2014, Harman denied allegations that she had supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when the advocacy group was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Patrick Rock, 62, deputy director of the No 10 policy unit, resigned and was arrested almost three weeks ago.

First smear Labour, then leak the truth out about the "nasty party".

So both stories are treated exactly the same way with presentation of facts - and according to you one is a smear one is a leak.

A smear would be something clearly and easily proven to be false - and the documentary evidence proves that is not the case with Harriet Harman

A leak would be be a story that is presented quietly and they swiftly buried by other stories while all other newspapers are also covering it. The fact the Mail broke it when other papers did not suspect its existence and the fact they are actively and very publicly digging for more details kind of suggests its not a leak.

Like I said the fact that certain people attack the Mail depending purely on the target of their digging says more about the people making the attacks that it does the Mail.

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
The dailyfuckwit spreads fear and loathing, in equal measure.

On 24 February 2014, Harman denied allegations that she had supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) when the advocacy group was affiliated with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Patrick Rock, 62, deputy director of the No 10 policy unit, resigned and was arrested almost three weeks ago.

First smear Labour, then leak the truth out about the "nasty party".

So both stories are treated exactly the same way with presentation of facts - and according to you one is a smear one is a leak.

A smear would be something clearly and easily proven to be false - and the documentary evidence proves that is not the case with Harriet Harman

A leak would be be a story that is presented quietly and they swiftly buried by other stories while all other newspapers are also covering it.  The fact the Mail broke it when other papers did not suspect its existence and the fact they are actively and very publicly digging for more details kind of suggests its not a leak.

Like I said the fact that certain people attack the Mail depending purely on the target of their digging says more about the people making the attacks that it does the Mail.

You appear to placing these events in the same category, of course that is the desired effect created by the dailyfuckwit.

Harriet Harman QC is a gifted human rights advocate, 40 years ago the NCCL was affiliated to PIE, this affiliation was wrong, it was as wrong then as it is now, but the affiliation took place before Harman joined, the fact that the dailyfuckwit chose to trawl this up, at a time when number 10 was aware of the arrest of an advisor to "dave" and one of his oldest and closest friends, on charges of child abuse.

The dailyfuckwit has stitched readers like yourself up like a kipper, if you cannot see it for what it is, then mores the pity.

Again that would stand up if every other newspaper was blasting the arrest of the advisor to Dave.

If it was known about weeks ago why did nobody publish it then? I would have thought the Mirror and the Guardian would have been all over it - but no.

If it was hidden and only became known a couple of days ago why was the Mail the only one shouting about it then? I mean it seems a stupid way to stitch people up when they could just have not published - because nobody else was.

So why did the other papers not blast it out - if you can come up with a reason the Mail would publish when nobody else was I might buy into your stitch up theory.

Patrick Rock was arrested on February 13th. Downing Street computers were seized.

So there you go. That is why the Daily Mail have been hammering on about Labour politicians for the last two weeks.

Just a reminder of what I said when The Mail first started their campaign against Harman et al Daily Mail: Why Now?

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/03/03/downing-street-aide-arrested-for-possession-of-child-abuse-images/



And his Why Now article?


by gojam | February 19, 2014 · 12:44 pm

Daily Mail: Why Now ?

-----------------------------------

Alex Wickham @ WickyGuido

Understand Tories have given their MPs strict advice about not commenting on the Harman/Dromey paedophile story

Retweeted by Guido Fawkes

-----------------------------------

The text of The Daily Mail story claims that this story can be exposed today, in reality this is very old news but look at how bombastic they are !

The headline screams ‘The truth about Labour’s apologists for paedophilia: Police probe child sex campaign group linked to three top party officials in wake of Savile scandal’ with one sub headline reading ’Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt linked to vile group’ The vile group in question is the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE)

For the MSM this is pretty strong stuff.

So why ?

Why has a Tory newspaper decided to go very heavy on some very old news attacking 3 senior Labour politicians now ?

It’s something for everyone to think about.

http://theneedleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/daily-mail-why-now/




Well, he wasn't wrong, was he?

sphinx wrote:Again that would stand up if every other newspaper was blasting the arrest of the advisor to Dave.

If it was known about weeks ago why did nobody publish it then?  I would have thought the Mirror and the Guardian would have been all over it - but no.

If it was hidden and only became known a couple of days ago why was the Mail the only one shouting about it then?  I mean it seems a stupid way to stitch people up when they could just have not published - because nobody else was.

So why did the other papers not blast it out - if you can come up with a reason the Mail would publish when nobody else was I might buy into your stitch up theory.

I would imagine that the wizard of oz has a fine working relationship with the neo nazi Dacre, after the disgusting attack on the war hero Milliband senior, one can see where all of this is going.

Consider this, if the dailyfuckwit had not smeared Labour and Harman, how much further devastation would this matter have caused "dave" and the "nasty party".

scrat wrote:

sphinx wrote:Again that would stand up if every other newspaper was blasting the arrest of the advisor to Dave.

If it was known about weeks ago why did nobody publish it then?  I would have thought the Mirror and the Guardian would have been all over it - but no.

If it was hidden and only became known a couple of days ago why was the Mail the only one shouting about it then?  I mean it seems a stupid way to stitch people up when they could just have not published - because nobody else was.

So why did the other papers not blast it out - if you can come up with a reason the Mail would publish when nobody else was I might buy into your stitch up theory.

I would imagine that the wizard of oz has a fine working relationship with the neo nazi Dacre, after the disgusting attack on the war hero Milliband senior, one can see where all of this is going.

Consider this, if the dailyfuckwit had not smeared Labour and Harman, how much further devastation would this matter have caused "dave" and the "nasty party".

Yes it would have caused devastation - if it had been reported.

Can you please tell me why if the DM is covering for the government it would report something damaging nobody else was reporting.

With or without the NCCL/PIE stories the damage to the government has come from the DM - why would they cause that damage when no one else is?

Anybody with half a brain, when the VERY OLD Harman story was dragged up, was thinking to themselves why? What have the Conservatives got to hide. And the DM did NOT do an exclusive on the Rock story, every other paper had it two days ago. The fact that it only came out two days ago shows that No.10 did a bloody good job of holding on to it, and even Guido, and you couldn't get more Conservative supporting than him, retweeted about Conservatives being told not to comment on the Harman story.

Truthfully, you'd have to be stupid not to see why.

Sassy wrote:Anybody with half a brain, when the VERY OLD Harman story was dragged up, was thinking to themselves why?   What have the Conservatives got to hide.   And the DM did NOT do an exclusive on the Rock story, every other paper had it two days ago.   The fact that it only came out two days ago shows that No.10 did a bloody good job of holding on to it, and even Guido, and you couldn't get more Conservative supporting than him, retweeted about Conservatives being told not to comment on the Harman story.

Truthfully, you'd have to be stupid not to see why.

If other newspapers had it, how could they do an exclusive?

You do know what exclusive means don't you?

sphinx wrote:

scrat wrote:
I would imagine that the wizard of oz has a fine working relationship with the neo nazi Dacre, after the disgusting attack on the war hero Milliband senior, one can see where all of this is going.

Consider this, if the dailyfuckwit had not smeared Labour and Harman, how much further devastation would this matter have caused "dave" and the "nasty party".

Yes it would have caused devastation - if it had been reported.  

Can you please tell me why if the DM is covering for the government it would report something damaging nobody else was reporting.

With or without the NCCL/PIE stories the damage to the government has come from the DM - why would they cause that damage when no one else is?

I guess some might find it strange that the dailyfuckwit would possess both stories whilst undertaking Labour smearing headlines ad nauseum, and then pop a smidgen of the truth about real events in, and call it balance.

Harman stood her ground and was correct to do so, let's see if the dailyfuckwit posts 10 days of headlines regarding this "nasty party" cretin.

BigAndy9 wrote:

Sassy wrote:Anybody with half a brain, when the VERY OLD Harman story was dragged up, was thinking to themselves why?   What have the Conservatives got to hide.   And the DM did NOT do an exclusive on the Rock story, every other paper had it two days ago.   The fact that it only came out two days ago shows that No.10 did a bloody good job of holding on to it, and even Guido, and you couldn't get more Conservative supporting than him, retweeted about Conservatives being told not to comment on the Harman story.

Truthfully, you'd have to be stupid not to see why.

If other newspapers had it, how could they do an exclusive?

You do know what exclusive means don't you?

Can i suggest you read? I said the DM was not doing an exclusive, because other papers had it at the same time. Sphinx seems to be trying to suggest that the DM broke the news, it didn't, it's probably been sitting on it on orders from No.10, as No 10 had told MPs not to comment on the Harman story.

Still does not explain why the DM is still digging up stuff on it does it?

It's very easy to think of our peers and indeed human beings in general as being good or wholesome; the majority are rule breakers, corrupt, nasty, devious and plain savage. Only a few are truly clean.

Croissant wrote:Everybody ignores me, so bleed'n rude.

Hello Keith.

I love your avatar pic

Thank you SM....now....how much are you being paid to talk to me?

Croissant wrote:Thank you SM....now....how much are you being paid to talk to me?

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!  

I agree - I love the John Reese character

sphinx wrote:Still does not explain why the DM is still digging up stuff on it does it?

They are not digging it up, all the papers have the info, the DM would show itself up for what it is if they didn't print it as well. None of the demanding answers from the PM is there?

Hasn't the Tory bloke resigned. Harriet hasn't even said sorry bit of a difference.