Harriet Harman wants Incest decriminalised

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:06 pm

Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law - Telegraph

She also advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 14 years old and watering down child pornography.

She Is the niece of Lord Longford who campaigned tirelessly for the release of Moors child murderer Myra Hindly...

Thoughts ???

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:11 pm

oscar;1445022 wrote: Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law - Telegraph

She also advocates lowering the age of sexual consent to 14 years old and watering down child pornography.

She Is the niece of Lord Longford who campaigned tirelessly for the release of Moors child murderer Myra Hindly...

Thoughts ???

Her "crime" appears to be that she worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties when she first qualified - a storm in the newspaper's tea cup

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:13 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445026 wrote: Her "crime" appears to be that she worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties when she first qualified - a storm in the newspaper's tea cup

I can't see It helping her re-election prospects...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 4:22 pm

oscar;1445027 wrote: I can't see It helping her re-election prospects...

Which is the start and the end of the intention of the article

Post by **LarsMac** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:49 pm

Just to be completely pedantic, I feel the need to point out that child pornography and child sex abuse have little to do with incest, generally.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:57 pm

LarsMac;1445046 wrote: Just to be completely pedantic, I feel the need to point out that child pornography and child sex abuse have little to do with incest, generally. True but It's the risk of genetic abnormalities that make It criminal.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:17 am

oscar;1445048 wrote: True but It's the risk of genetic abnormalities that make It criminal.
That I understand. However, I see nothing in the article you posted that ties her opinions regarding child pornography and abuse/exploitation of children to any opinion of hers regarding incest.

In my opinion, anyone who abuses or exploits children sexually should be hung, drawn and quartered. I really couldn't care less about what they do with their siblings, though.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 8:57 am

oscar;1445048 wrote: True but It's the risk of genetic abnormalities that make It criminal.

Incest was criminalized in England by the Incest Act of 1908, prior to which it was a matter for penance under the Ecclesiastical Court. Hansard shows that two considerations were advanced when the matter was debated, the foremost being "moral depravity" and the afterthought "physical deterioration".

The present law on incest in England is divided into two parts. One (to which, I presume from your thread title, Harriet Harman refers and which she may or may not wish to abolish) relates to adults ("Sex with an adult relative"). The other, which I would be very surprised if Harriet Harman has addressed at all, relates to children ("Familial child sex offences"). Quite honestly I find your thread title "Harriot Harman wants Incest decriminalised" predictably crass, unhelpful and deliberately misleading.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:32 am

Bryn Mawr;1445026 wrote: Her "crime" appears to be that she worked for the National Council for Civil Liberties when she first qualified - a storm in the newspaper's tea cup

For four years...as a legal... she must have realised the Implications of what they campaigned for,

A second future Labour minister, Harriet Harman, served as the NCCL’s legal officer for four years from 1978. Harman has called the Savile revelations ‘a stain’ on the BBC. Yet while she was at the NCCL she seemed untroubled by its PIE affiliate. Moreover, she campaigned for a liberalisation of child porn laws. In the NCCL’s response to a Bill that aimed to ban indecent images of under-16s, she stated absurdly that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown the subject had suffered, claiming that the new law could lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’ and ‘increase censorship’. Embarrassed by this reminder, Harman now insists she never condoned pornography and had merely wanted to ensure the new law delivered child protection rather than censorship.

How disingenuous. For in such liberal circles, freedom unconstrained by any rules at all had become the shibboleth. Not just freedom of expression but — fatefully — freedom to have sex without any constraints. Any form of sexual activity was seen as a ‘right’ — regardless of with whom you did it. That’s why the NCCL also campaigned to decriminalise incest. Objectors were damned as prigs, prudes and bigots. Their silence was enforced by the vicious, politically correct demonisation of anyone who tried to blow the whistle on licentious behaviour, which was blessed by liberals and thus deemed to be untouchable. The result was that in case after case over the years, the authorities turned a blind eye to the systematic sexual abuse of children in care homes, principally through the terror of being labelled ‘homophobic’.

Harriet Harman

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:35 am

Yeah, so what has any of that to do with 'incest' ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:45 am

LarsMac;1445084 wrote: Yeah, so what has any of that to do with 'incest' ? For four years she was affiliated with the group who called for decriminalisation of Incest.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:53 am

oscar;1445089 wrote: For four years she was affiliated with the group who called for decriminalisation of Incest.

Again, what has anything you quoted have to do with incest?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 9:56 am

LarsMac;1445095 wrote: Again, what has anything you quoted have to do with incest? So your saying that someone can work In a legal capacity for a group to relax the laws and have no affiliation with those proposals and campaigns?

Put It this way.... Do you think that had Nick Griffin been the legal of this body, everyone would be saying the same?

Taken from my OP link

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:07 am

The bee in your bonnet appears to be Harriet Harman rather than NCCL or incest though. You were bleating on about "Harriot Harmen" back in 2009 too.

What you're implying is that reducing the age of consent to 14, and decriminalizing incest, leaves 14 year olds sexually active with a parent. What you're ignoring is "position of trust" clauses which increase the age at which consent can be given where the person is an authority figure. Care workers, teachers. And, by extension, if "Sex with an adult relative" were removed from the statute books, other family members.

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:16 am

oscar;1445099 wrote: So your saying that someone can work In a legal capacity for a group to relax the laws and have no affiliation with those proposals and campaigns?

Put It this way.... Do you think that had Nick Griffin been the legal of this body, everyone would be saying the same?

Taken from my OP link

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings.

I am not saying anything.

So, OK, buried in the third paragraph, I see the little bit about decriminalizing incest. So I now see what you were talking about.

But, now I really must ask, why does the idea of incest seem more abhorant to you than the bit about child porn, or the bit about adults having sex with children, or adults exploiting children for sexual purposes?

I find incest to be, of all of those items listed, far less offensive.

I could care less if Jack and Jill, two consenting adult siblings, want to have a diddle while fetching their pale.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:19 am

LarsMac;1445107 wrote: I am not saying anything.

So, OK, buried in the third paragraph, I see the little bit about decriminalizing incest. So I now see what you were talking about.

But, now I really must ask, why does the idea of incest seem more abhorant to you than the bit about child porn, or the bit about adults having sex with children, or adults exploiting children for sexual purposes?

I find incest to be, of all of those items listed, far less offensive.

I could care less if Jack and Jill, two consenting adult siblings, want to have a diddle while fetching their pale. The title of my thread no-where Indicates that I find It offensive,,, my only concern would be the babies born with genetic abnormalities,

Post by **LarsMac** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:23 am

So, then all of this is really OK with you.

Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:25 am

LarsMac;1445119 wrote: So, then all of this is really OK with you.

Got it.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Consanguinity – Inbreeding

My view Is generally that children should be protected.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 10:27 am

oscar;1445112 wrote: The title of my thread no-where Indicates that I find It offensive,,, my only concern would be the babies born with genetic abnormalities,

The laws against "Sex with an adult relative" are against sex, not against conception. Or would you also criminalize conception by carriers of genetic abnormalities to the same extent that incest is currently legislated against. Or is that of less concern to you, despite being a higher risk to the health of the conceived. Forcibly weeding out genetic abnormalities by law was, if I recall, a central plank in the policies of the Third Reich.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 2:56 pm

oscar;1445083 wrote: For four years...as a legal... she must have realised the Implications of what they campaigned for,

A second future Labour minister, Harriet Harman, served as the NCCL’s legal officer for four years from 1978. Harman has called the Savile revelations ‘a stain’ on the BBC. Yet while she was at the NCCL she seemed untroubled by its PIE affiliate. Moreover, she campaigned for a liberalisation of child porn laws. In the NCCL’s response to a Bill that aimed to ban indecent images of under-16s, she stated absurdly that pornographic photographs or films of children should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown the subject had suffered, claiming that the new law could lead to ‘damaging and absurd prosecutions’ and ‘increase censorship’. Embarrassed by this reminder, Harman now insists she never condoned pornography and had merely wanted to ensure the new law delivered child protection rather than censorship.

How disingenuous. For in such liberal circles, freedom unconstrained by any rules at all had become the shibboleth. Not just freedom of expression but — fatefully — freedom to have sex without any constraints. Any form of sexual activity was seen as a ‘right’ — regardless of with whom you did it. That’s why the NCCL also campaigned to decriminalise incest. Objectors were damned as prigs, prudes and bigots. Their silence was enforced by the vicious, politically correct demonisation of anyone who tried to blow the whistle on licentious behaviour, which was blessed by liberals and thus deemed to be untouchable. The result was that in case after case over the years, the authorities turned a blind eye to the systematic sexual abuse of children in care homes, principally through the terror of being labelled ‘homophobic’.

Harriet Harman

Do you remember your first four years at work - you're a junior, forever trying to learn the levels you're moving through and get to the next level.

Certainly, in my case, the last thing I was worrying about was the companies place in the world.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 3:02 pm

oscar;1445089 wrote: For four years she was affiliated with the group who called for decriminalisation of Incest.

Is there any evidence that she, herself, called for the decriminalisation of incest or is this guilt by association?

Your title for the thread is "Harriet Harman wants Incest decriminalised" - where does she call for that?

The headline of the Telegraph's article suggests that she, personally, made a bid to water down the child pornography laws - where is the evidence that she did so?

She worked for a living - the rest is political opponents making hay

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Mon Jan 20, 2014 7:24 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445215 wrote: Is there any evidence that she, herself, called for the decriminalisation of incest or is this guilt by association?

Your title for the thread is "Harriet Harman wants Incest decriminalised" - where does she call for that?

The headline of the Telegraph's article suggests that she, personally, made a bid to water down the child pornography laws - where is the evidence that she did so?

She worked for a living - the rest is political opponents making hay I see your point of view regrading the title and accept that.

But come on Bryn.

Do you seriously believe for one minute that had Nick Griffin or Nigel Farage had the same affiliation to a body that wanted to water down child pornography laws or even decriminalise Incest that they wouldn't be under lock and key for the association with pedophiles and slapped over every national newspaper along with being labeled a pervert ?

Let's say, I was even a tea boy for a body that was campaigning for dumbing down of child pornography laws...Would I carry on working for them If that was against my beliefs? No... I'd get the hell out of there.

Harriot Harmen may not have ever sat In front of a journalist and stated she wanted to decriminalise Incest true, but come on... she wasn't the tea girl, she was their legal. As their legal, she must have played some part In that 4 years In exploring the laws and how to change them... or are you seriously trying to say that she Is so dumb that she worked as a legal for 4 years but had no Idea of the agenda?

AnneBoleyn · Post by **AnneBoleyn** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 8:56 am

Sounds like a lot of speculation.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 10:09 am

AnneBoleyn;1445302 wrote: Sounds like a lot of speculation.

Hardly

How Labour Deputy Harriet Harman, her shadow minister husband and former Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt were all linked to a group lobbying for the right to have sex with children | Mail Online

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Jan 21, 2014 4:00 pm

oscar;1445285 wrote: I see your point of view regrading the title and accept that.

But come on Bryn.

Do you seriously believe for one minute that had Nick Griffin or Nigel Farage had the same affiliation to a body that wanted to water down child pornography laws or even decriminalise Incest that they wouldn't be under lock and key for the association with pedophiles and slapped over every national newspaper along with being labeled a pervert ?

Let's say, I was even a tea boy for a body that was campaigning for dumbing down of child pornography laws...Would I carry on working for them If that was against my beliefs? No... I'd get the hell out of there.

Harriot Harmen may not have ever sat In front of a journalist and stated she wanted to decriminalise Incest true, but come on... she wasn't the tea girl, she was their legal. As their legal, she must have played some part In that 4 years In exploring the laws and how to change them... or are you seriously trying to say that she Is so dumb that she worked as a legal for 4 years but had no Idea of the agenda?

No, I don't believe for one minute that Griffin or Farage would be under lock and key for this - yes, the media would be in a feeding frenzy but this country is ruled by the law, not by the media and I would object to the media hype just as much for them as I do for Harmen.

This is an attempt at political assassination, nothing more, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 12:35 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445382 wrote: No, I don't believe for one minute that Griffin or Farage would be under lock and key for this - yes, the media would be in a feeding frenzy but this country is ruled by the law, not by the media and I would object to the media hype just as much for them as I do for Harmen.

This is an attempt at political assassination, nothing more, and should be treated with the contempt it deserves.

Maybe under lock and key Is too strong but your post does not answer my question of, do you believe she could have worked as Liberty's legal four 4 years and not have known the agenda? Even agreed with It ?

I find your statement of political assassination and this country Is ruled by the law and not the media Interesting.

What exactly do you think the left wing media have done to Nick Griffin for decades? He Is the prime example of exactly how the media have In deed ruled the country.

There are similarities between the two... when Nick Griffin questioned the numbers killed In the Holocaust ( He did not deny the Holocaust ) he was a young Uni student In his 20's. If we are to say that Harmen was young and just starting out on her career, why Is the same never said of Griffin? Yet for 40 years, at every turn, we have seen stupid things Nick said In his 20's rehashed, even raised on the revolting spectacle of the witch hunt that was Question Time.

Nick Griffin Is a democratically elected member of The European Union, He Is the only politician who has had the balls to make two trips to Syria and meet with Assad. He has just returned from Russia on another peace trip over Syria but you will never read about that In the mainstream media.... and you say the media does not control this country?... Don't make me laugh.

Furthermore .. Why does anyone find It acceptable to politically assassinate Nick Griffin but not Harriot Harmen ? The answer Is simple.. He's not your party.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:25 pm

oscar;1445501 wrote: Maybe under lock and key Is too strong but your post does not answer my question of, do you believe she could have worked as Liberty's legal four 4 years and not have known the agenda? Even agreed with It ?

I find your statement of political assassination and this country Is ruled by the law and not the media Interesting.

What exactly do you think the left wing media have done to Nick Griffin for decades? He Is the prime example of exactly how the media have In deed ruled the country.

There are similarities between the two... when Nick Griffin questioned the numbers killed In the Holocaust ( He did not deny the Holocaust ) he was a young Uni student In his 20's. If we are to say that Harmen was young and just starting out on her career, why Is the same never said of Griffin? Yet for 40 years, at every turn, we have seen stupid things Nick said In his 20's rehashed, even raised on the revolting spectacle of the witch hunt that was Question Time.

Nick Griffin Is a democratically elected member of The European Union, He Is the only politician who has had the balls to make two trips to Syria and meet with Assad. He has just returned from Russia on another peace trip over Syria but you will never read about that In the mainstream media.... and you say the media does not control this country?... Don't make me laugh.

Furthermore .. Why does anyone find It acceptable to politically assassinate Nick Griffin but not Harriot Harmen ? The answer Is simple.. He's not your party.

I'm sure that after four years she would have known their agenda, maybe that's what led to her leaving? Neither of us can know whether she agreed with the policy from the evidence to hand as there is no evident that bears directly on the question. Any attempt to draw a conclusion only shows the bias of the drawer.

As for Nick Griffin, the reason it is constantly re-hashed is because it was just the first in a long string of outrageous statements.

As for his trips to Syria, do you remember George Galloway's peace trips to Iraq and the political fallout from them - even to the extent of being "summoned to Washington" to face the Senate. Did you ever say that he has balls for doing so?

Of course the media do not control the country - they have far too much influence but they do not control. Would we have seen the NotW destroyed and News International severely damaged along with the rest of the Murdoch empire if the media controlled the country?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 1:43 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445507 wrote: I'm sure that after four years she would have known their agenda, maybe that's what led to her leaving? Neither of us can know whether she agreed with the policy from the evidence to hand as there is no evident that bears directly on the question. Any attempt to draw a conclusion only shows the bias of the drawer.

As for Nick Griffin, the reason it is constantly re-hashed is because it was just the first in a long string of outrageous statements.

As for his trips to Syria, do you remember George Galloway's peace trips to Iraq and the political fallout from them - even to the extent of being "summoned to Washington" to face the Senate. Did you ever say that he has balls for doing so?

Of course the media do not control the country - they have far too much influence but they do not control. Would we have seen the NotW destroyed and News International severely damaged along with the rest of the Murdoch empire if the media controlled the country?

Yes, I remember the fall out of GG's trips to Iraq and that Is a perfect example of how media can make or break a politican. In GG's case, they went against him. In Griffin's, his peace keeping missions have simply seen a media black out for fear of the electorate seeing any good In him...

Angered by the British media’s coverage of Brussels, the European Commission says it wants to be a “moral compass” against press misconduct, seeking new national and Europe-wide regulatory powers over journalists.

The EU has spent £2.3 million on the little publicised “Mediadem” project to “reclaim a free and independent media”. In a “policy brief” co-authored by its lead British researcher, Rachael Craufurd Smith, Mediadem says it is “simplistic” to “see state influence [over the press] as inherently stifling”.

Dr Craufurd Smith, an Edinburgh University academic, said that it was also “simplistic” to believe that “market-driven media” were now “free and independent”.

Mediadem recently produced “recommendations for the UK” demanding the “imposition of sanctions beyond an apology or correction” on errant media outlets and the “co-ordination of the journalistic profession at the European level”.

The recommendations call for the press to be controlled by the same body and on the same basis as broadcasters, who are currently tightly regulated with statutory “balance” obligations that do not apply to newspapers.

EU pours millions into groups seeking state control of press - Telegraph

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:21 pm

oscar;1445508 wrote: Yes, I remember the fall out of GG's trips to Iraq and that Is a perfect example of how media can make or break a politican. In GG's case, they went against him. In Griffin's, his peace keeping missions have simply seen a media black out for fear of the electorate seeing any good In him...

Angered by the British mediaï¿½s coverage of Brussels, the European Commission says it wants to be a ï¿½moral compassï¿½ against press misconduct, seeking new national and Europe-wide regulatory powers over journalists.

The EU has spent ï¿½2.3‰million on the little publicised ï¿½Mediademï¿½ project to ï¿½reclaim a free and independent mediaï¿½. In a ï¿½policy briefï¿½ co-authored by its lead British researcher, Rachael Craufurd Smith, Mediadem says it is ï¿½simplisticï¿½ to ï¿½see state influence [over the press] as inherently stiflingï¿½.

Dr Craufurd Smith, an Edinburgh University academic, said that it was also ï¿½simplisticï¿½ to believe that ï¿½market-driven mediaï¿½ were now ï¿½free and independentï¿½.

Mediadem recently produced ï¿½recommendations for the UKï¿½ demanding the ï¿½imposition of sanctions beyond an apology or correctionï¿½ on errant media outlets and the ï¿½co-ordination of the journalistic profession at the European levelï¿½.

The recommendations call for the press to be controlled by the same body and on the same basis as broadcasters, who are currently tightly regulated with statutory ï¿½balanceï¿½ obligations that do not apply to newspapers.

EU pours millions into groups seeking state control of press - Telegraph

That is evidence that the media is exerting too much influence, not that it has control.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 2:43 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445512 wrote: That is evidence that the media is exerting too much influence, not that it has control.

Exactly !!!

It's when any body has that amount of Influence and Is exerting too much Influence that It becomes control.

The media do and can make or break a politicians career. The Irony being that the left wing media dumb down Griffin's peace missions to control the electorate and possible future votes but suddenly It becomes a witch hunt when It's one of their own who may lose her seat to negative reporting.

By merely having the ability to dumb down or highlight gives them the control.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:14 pm

To exacerbate the problem, now days, anyone can get published, and spout whatever they want, and some idiot "News website" can pick it up and run with it.

It doesn't have to have an ounce of truth to it, just needs to get somebody's attention, and it becomes "News"

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Wed Jan 22, 2014 3:18 pm

oscar;1445513 wrote: Exactly !!!

It's when any body has that amount of Influence and Is exerting too much Influence that It becomes control.

The media do and can make or break a politicians career. The Irony being that the left wing media dumb down Griffin's peace missions to control the electorate and possible future votes but suddenly It becomes a witch hunt when It's one of their own who may lose her seat to negative reporting.

By merely having the ability to dumb down or highlight gives them the control.

No - influence is not control, there is a step change between them.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:02 pm

Bryn Mawr;1445516 wrote: No - influence is not control, there is a step change between them. Following this, I would expect arrests within the year.

Police probe child sex group linked to top Labour officials including Harriet Harman | Mail Online

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:09 pm

oscar;1448469 wrote: Following this, I would expect arrests within the year.

Police probe child sex group linked to top Labour officials including Harriet Harman | Mail Online

Shall we be explicit in your mud-sticking? Are you predicting "arrests within the year" among "top Labour officials including Harriet Harman", or do you just like juxtaposing the words time after time in the belief that mud sticks.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Feb 18, 2014 6:14 pm

Týr;1448470 wrote: Shall we be explicit in your mud-sticking? Are you predicting "arrests within the year" among "top Labour officials including Harriet Harman", or do you just like juxtaposing the words time after time in the belief that mud sticks. Thank you for your Input to my thread however, I have no desire to engage with you.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:21 am

oscar;1448471 wrote: Thank you for your Input to my thread however, I have no desire to engage with you.

if you'll not retract your disgusting innuendo then I'll bump the thread in twelve months to challenge you on its lying implication a second time then, how's that. You should be utterly ashamed of what you do on this site, it's vile.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:06 am

Týr;1448484 wrote: if you'll not retract your disgusting innuendo then I'll bump the thread in twelve months to challenge you on its lying implication a second time then, how's that. You should be utterly ashamed of what you do on this site, it's vile.

If you'd like to raise this thread In a year, by all means do so. I will not be responding to your bullying further. I have no Interest In anything you have to say. Go and bully the Daily Mail for writing the article Instead. Your agenda here Is obvious to all.

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 5:12 am

oscar;1448487 wrote: If you'd like to raise this thread In a year, by all means do so. I will not be responding to your bullying further. I have no Interest In anything you have to say. Go and bully the Daily Mail for writing the article Instead. Your agenda here Is obvious to all.

It's your thread title, when conjoined with the Daily Mail headline in the opening post, that's so grotesquely misleading. I rarely intervene in your threads but this one is indefensible.

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 8:43 am

oscar;1448487 wrote: If you'd like to raise this thread In a year, by all means do so. I will not be responding to your bullying further. I have no Interest In anything you have to say. Go and bully the Daily Mail for writing the article Instead. Your agenda here Is obvious to all.

So is your own agenda, it seems.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:04 am

LarsMac;1448514 wrote: So is your own agenda, it seems. How on earth does linking two newspaper reports on a subject give me or anyone else an agenda ?

Note that the link I posted In the OP was not the right wing Daily Mail but the Left Wing Telegraph that supports the Labour Party.

I have given two Independent reports from different tabloids saying much the same as each other.

So do we now have a situation on FG where If we don't like what's being said or suggested In newspapers, we accuse the poster of having an agenda? That's bullying Isn't It ?

In other words, no-one here can offer me one shred of factual evidence that Harriot Harmen does not have links with P.I.E and that the reports are untrue. Rather than provide some evidence that she does not, we turn It around on the poster because we have no counter argument ??? That's a cop out.

Or here on FG, are we free to discuss any other politician and tear them to shreds providing It's not a politician from the Party Tyr supports?

Let's just discuss the subject In hand

Týr · Post by **Týr** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:18 am

oscar;1448516 wrote: no-one here can offer me one shred of factual evidence that Harriot Harmen does not have links with P.I.E

She's named Harriet Harman. Denying her name over the years, as you repeatedly have, is as dehumanizing as your drip-drip lying about her. Jester used to do exactly the same about "Muslums" and for the same reason.

Harriet Harman has no more of a link to PIE than anyone else working for the National Council for Civil Liberties at the time, or than workers at any other organization to which PIE sent a subscription. PIE was, at the time, a pressure group with no criminal association - why on earth would the National Council for Civil Liberties not accept an affiliation request from them?

The grotesque implication of your opening post, combining the word "child" from the Telegraph headline with "wants Incest decriminalised", is plain deliberate wicked lying on your part.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 9:29 am

Týr;1448517 wrote: She's named Harriet Harman. Denying her name over the years, as you repeatedly have, is as dehumanizing as your drip-drip lying about her. Jester used to do exactly the same about "Muslums" and for the same reason.

Harriet Harman has no more of a link to PIE than anyone else working for the National Council for Civil Liberties at the time, or than workers at any other organization to which PIE sent a subscription. PIE was, at the time, a pressure group with no criminal association - why on earth would the National Council for Civil Liberties not accept an affiliation request from them?

The grotesque implication of your opening post, combining the word "child" from the Telegraph headline with "wants Incest decriminalised", is plain deliberate wicked lying on your part. Lying ???

Taken from The Telegraph

But she faces fresh criticism from Opposition MPs and campaign groups after The Daily Telegraph obtained documents showing that she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings.

Now show me factual documented evidence that she did not and Is not connected to P.I.E

Post by **LarsMac** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 10:59 am

oscar;1448518 wrote: Lying ???

Taken from The Telegraph

But she faces fresh criticism from Opposition MPs and campaign groups after The Daily Telegraph obtained documents showing that she called on ministers to make sexually explicit photographs or films of children legal unless there was evidence that the subject had been harmed.

At the time she made the official submission, she was a senior figure in a civil liberties organisation that wanted the age of consent to be lowered to 14 and incest decriminalised. It also defended self-confessed paedophiles in the press and allowed them to attend its meetings.

Now show me factual documented evidence that she did not and Is not connected to P.I.E

All of this taken completely out of context, and ignoring the fact that several people had been charged with pornography violations simply because they had pictures of their own children on film that they had turned into photo processors, in which the child or children happened to be naked.

Besides, it is up to you to show "Factual evidence" to support your claims.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Feb 19, 2014 11:11 am

LarsMac;1448527 wrote:

Besides, it is up to you to show "Factual evidence" to support your claims. No It's not... I have linked the newspaper reports,

Taken from the Mail

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

A senior source on the investigation says there is evidence PIE members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

The Home Office is also probing shocking claims that the Labour government of the 1970s may have helped finance the paedophile group.

Civil servants are trawling through decades of files after an ‘insider’ claimed tens of thousands of pounds were funnelled to PIE in the form of annual grants to the network of child abusers while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.

More...

Labour's child sex apologists: 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'

A Daily Mail investigation has discovered that during the 1970s and 1980s:

* Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’;

* The NCCL lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten – if the child consented and ‘understood the nature of the act’.

* It called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a ‘Lolita’s charter’;

* The NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often ‘consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved’;

* It filed a submission to Parliament claiming that ‘childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage’.

* Miss Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws.

* NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.

The Mail has repeatedly sent detailed questions to Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Mr Dromey about their links to PIE and whether they now regret supporting such a vile group. Neither Miss Hewitt nor Mr Dromey replied.

It Is up to anyone to disprove the allegations made by the newspapers. Attacking the poster of the articles solves nothing.

I'm sure there will be more on the subject If anyone wants to seriously debate the police Investigation Operation Fernbridge and The Home Office probe... as of course, If It's all lies, we'll be seeing a lawsuit by HH against the Telegraph and Daily Mail won't we?