|
Post by shrewed46 on Feb 25, 2014 15:58:58 GMT 1
<abbr data-timestamp="1393339732000" class="time" title="Feb 25, 2014 14:48:52 GMT">Feb 25, 2014 14:48:52 GMT</abbr> Leicestershrew said: It's a case of 'guilty by association' I suppose isn't it? There does seem to be a reluctant acceptance that the Daily Mail has unearthed something here and that is shown in the support of the Mirror and the Guardian among others who have carried this story. I don't think a Miliband style 'smear campaign' would not be in the papers interests given the ongoing inquiries into press standards plus how the recent Miliband issue was handled, but Harman has stated that she wants the public to be the jury of this story which suggests she isn't willing to go through the courts to protect her name. Read in to that what you will I suppose. Why would she go to court, the facts are true she worked for the NCCL, PIE was affiliated to NCCL. So the Daily Mail has in your words found her "guilty by association". Just because the Mirror and the Guardian report the item does not mean they support the Daily Mail's smear campaign.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 16:05:48 GMT 1
<abbr data-timestamp="1393339732000" class="time" title="Feb 25, 2014 14:48:52 GMT">Feb 25, 2014 14:48:52 GMT</abbr> Leicestershrew said: It's a case of 'guilty by association' I suppose isn't it? There does seem to be a reluctant acceptance that the Daily Mail has unearthed something here and that is shown in the support of the Mirror and the Guardian among others who have carried this story. I don't think a Miliband style 'smear campaign' would not be in the papers interests given the ongoing inquiries into press standards plus how the recent Miliband issue was handled, but Harman has stated that she wants the public to be the jury of this story which suggests she isn't willing to go through the courts to protect her name. Read in to that what you will I suppose. Why would she go to court, the facts are true she worked for the NCCL, PIE was affiliated to NCCL. So the Daily Mail has in your words found her "guilty by association". Just because the Mirror and the Guardian report the item does not mean they support the Daily Mail's smear campaign. Defamation suit perhaps. Looking at the facts presented at the moment it does strike you as not much more than HH being 'guilty of association' but it's the kind of association that could kill of a political career. Like I said I'm sure as this story goes on we will find out more about this so called 'affiliation' and how much Harman, her husband and Hewitt knew about it.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Feb 25, 2014 16:33:33 GMT 1
I think possibly too much is being read into the "affiliated" statement
Back in the 70s prior to IT, mass mailings and membership lists on databases all you had to do to subscribe to an association or union was send in your membership fees - in return you would get updates from the organisation and an ability to attend its AGM. As I said in an earlier post my student union was I think a member
In the modern world this does sound a bit amateurish and certainly the loose affiliation process left unions open to infiltration to pressure groups - some of which were damaging. But with over 1000 affiliate organisations I'm not sure NCCL or its executive would actually have known much about the activity of its affiliate members unless they directly came to them for support.
Even in the Mail reports I've not seen anything showing Harmen had direct dealings with the PIE group, or that they influenced NCCL policy. Could well be more to come I guess but seems unlikely or Mail would have printed it by now I guess.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 16:43:21 GMT 1
It's a case of 'guilty by association' I suppose isn't it? No one is suggesting she's an active pedophile herself or condoned any such actions in the past, but it does put into question the housekeeping practices of the organisation she worked for around that time. So this story isn't about her and her malpractice, rather it's about a group that doesn't exist anymore and the affiliation policy and scrutinisation it employed to groups it was associated with, before HH joined the group. Sorry LS but to me this really sounds like the mail scrapping the bottom of a pretty rotten barrel. Yeh I know, that's exactly what you expect from a soft liberal lefty Labour Party apologist, but unless they have something a bit more concrete and damning than this......
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 25, 2014 19:47:00 GMT 1
clearly 2015 will be one of the dirtiest general election campaigns in living memory. Its effect could be to finally finish off any lingering faith that the populace had in the political elites in this country.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 20:11:17 GMT 1
clearly 2015 will be one of the dirtiest general election campaigns in living memory. Its effect could be to finally finish off any lingering faith that the populace had in the political elites in this country. Exactly, so why do you politicoes waste so much time slagging each other off, nothing ever changes!
|
|
|
Post by jamo on Feb 25, 2014 20:28:26 GMT 1
I think possibly too much is being read into the "affiliated" statement Back in the 70s prior to IT, mass mailings and membership lists on databases all you had to do to subscribe to an association or union was send in your membership fees - in return you would get updates from the organisation and an ability to attend its AGM. As I said in an earlier post my student union was I think a member In the modern world this does sound a bit amateurish and certainly the loose affiliation process left unions open to infiltration to pressure groups - some of which were damaging. But with over 1000 affiliate organisations I'm not sure NCCL or its executive wou actually have known much about the activity of its affiliate members unless they directly came to them for support. Even in the Mail reports I've not seen anything showing Harmen had direct dealings with the PIE group, or that they influenced NCCL policy. Could well be more to come I guess but seems unlikely or Mail would have printed it by now I guess. Best comments on the thread. Won't stop the O.P. Spreading his predictable poison though
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 21:25:46 GMT 1
Spot on. People seem to be forgetting the context. If the DM wishes to go down the route of ‘guilt by association’ they will have to name every member of NNCL who was active at that time and get them to apologise, or whatever it is they want. As pointed out we’re due an election and this has been public knowledge for some time. What gets me is that supposedly intelligent people fall for this e. I think possibly too much is being read into the "affiliated" statement Back in the 70s prior to IT, mass mailings and membership lists on databases all you had to do to subscribe to an association or union was send in your membership fees - in return you would get updates from the organisation and an ability to attend its AGM. As I said in an earlier post my student union was I think a member In the modern world this does sound a bit amateurish and certainly the loose affiliation process left unions open to infiltration to pressure groups - some of which were damaging. But with over 1000 affiliate organisations I'm not sure NCCL or its executive would actually have known much about the activity of its affiliate members unless they directly came to them for support. Even in the Mail reports I've not seen anything showing Harmen had direct dealings with the PIE group, or that they influenced NCCL policy. Could well be more to come I guess but seems unlikely or Mail would have printed it by now I guess. Spot on. People seem to be forgetting the context. If the DM wishes to go down the route of ‘guilt by association’ they will have to name every member of NNCL who was active at that time and get them to apologise, or whatever it is they want. As pointed out we’re due an election and this has been public knowledge for some time. What gets me is that supposedly intelligent people fall for this e.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 21:55:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 22:10:26 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 22:13:00 GMT 1
I think possibly too much is being read into the "affiliated" statement Back in the 70s prior to IT, mass mailings and membership lists on databases all you had to do to subscribe to an association or union was send in your membership fees - in return you would get updates from the organisation and an ability to attend its AGM. As I said in an earlier post my student union was I think a member In the modern world this does sound a bit amateurish and certainly the loose affiliation process left unions open to infiltration to pressure groups - some of which were damaging. But with over 1000 affiliate organisations I'm not sure NCCL or its executive wou actually have known much about the activity of its affiliate members unless they directly came to them for support. Even in the Mail reports I've not seen anything showing Harmen had direct dealings with the PIE group, or that they influenced NCCL policy. Could well be more to come I guess but seems unlikely or Mail would have printed it by now I guess. Best comments on the thread. Won't stop the O.P. Spreading his predictable poison though Want to enlighten us with your thoughts? No, thought not. Carry on riding the backs of those who can contribute to intelligent debate ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 25, 2014 22:52:02 GMT 1
If we're finding people 'guilty by association' then the bloke on the right must be facing some stretch... ![](http://www.davidicke.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/legacy_images/stories/Oct20121/618_showbiz_jimmy_saville_5.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by mrbunny on Feb 25, 2014 22:56:22 GMT 1
If and I repeat IF there is actually something in this story why haven't the press gone for the jugular before now? Surely when she was in a government role was a more apt time to try and destroy her career as that is what they seem to be trying to do.
Anyway, this is probably just the start of the dirtiest election campaign ever and it doesn't sit well.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 23:00:56 GMT 1
They were thrown in front of the parliamentary committee.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 23:08:02 GMT 1
They were thrown in front of the parliamentary committee. Yeh that'll teach them!
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 23:10:58 GMT 1
They were thrown in front of the parliamentary committee. Yeh that'll teach them! Just pointing out that was 'the dock' as such, you never stipulated which one ![:P](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/tongue.png)
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 26, 2014 0:12:23 GMT 1
No fan of Harman, but this does seem to be a politically motivated smear on pretty tenuous grounds. She didn't do herself any favours with her response, but I can't see any basis she has ever promoted 'paedophile rights'. The Mail also has form for describing girls as young as 8 as 'leggy' and 'curvy' so a bit rich coming from them. The BBC also has form for wrongly accusing now deceased Tory peers as being involved in child abuse. I think one of the Guardian writers originally leaked the name on Twitter before the Schof' make the same gaffe on TV. Seems rather wishy washy that we forever associate the Mail with misdemeanors and 'smear campaign's' but still hold on to the largely left-wing press as being the 'reputable' side of the coin. I'll keep my eye out for future BBC links before declaring 'well you can't believe anything this tosh says can we?' ![;-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/squint.png)
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 26, 2014 0:57:57 GMT 1
No fan of Harman, but this does seem to be a politically motivated smear on pretty tenuous grounds. She didn't do herself any favours with her response, but I can't see any basis she has ever promoted 'paedophile rights'. The Mail also has form for describing girls as young as 8 as 'leggy' and 'curvy' so a bit rich coming from them. The BBC also has form for wrongly accusing now deceased Tory peers as being involved in child abuse. I think one of the Guardian writers originally leaked the name on Twitter before the Schof' make the same gaffe on TV. Seems rather wishy washy that we forever associate the Mail with misdemeanors and 'smear campaign's' but still hold on to the largely left-wing press as being the 'reputable' side of the coin. I'll keep my eye out for future BBC links before declaring 'well you can't believe anything this tosh says can we?' ![;-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) Last year the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had 'targeted' Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming 'rather than face a fresh medical'; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. (source: www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain)Together with their 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' fascist supporting heritage, it's no wonder their agenda is viewed with a high level of cynicism and suspicion. I'm not sure from your wording whether you think the press is largely left wing (when surely the opposite is the case), or that the left wing press (by which I presume you mean the Guardian, Independent and Mirror, rather than the Morning Star and Socialist Worker!) is considered 'reputable'. There was a study that showed the BBC, though constantly accused of 'left wing bias', actually demonstrated right wing bias: (source:http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 ) Not surprising seeing as Tory grandee Chris Patten is Chairman of the BBC Trust and David Cameron openly salivated over the 'delicious prospect' of BBC cuts.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 26, 2014 1:47:04 GMT 1
The BBC also has form for wrongly accusing now deceased Tory peers as being involved in child abuse. I think one of the Guardian writers originally leaked the name on Twitter before the Schof' make the same gaffe on TV. Seems rather wishy washy that we forever associate the Mail with misdemeanors and 'smear campaign's' but still hold on to the largely left-wing press as being the 'reputable' side of the coin. I'll keep my eye out for future BBC links before declaring 'well you can't believe anything this tosh says can we?' ![;-|](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/squint.png) Last year the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had 'targeted' Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming 'rather than face a fresh medical'; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false. (source: www.newstatesman.com/media/2013/12/man-who-hates-liberal-britain)Together with their 'Hurrah for the Blackshirts' fascist supporting heritage, it's no wonder their agenda is viewed with a high level of cynicism and suspicion. I'm not sure from your wording whether you think the press is largely left wing (when surely the opposite is the case), or that the left wing press (by which I presume you mean the Guardian, Independent and Mirror, rather than the Morning Star and Socialist Worker!) is considered 'reputable'. There was a study that showed the BBC, though constantly accused of 'left wing bias', actually demonstrated right wing bias: (source:http://theconversation.com/hard-evidence-how-biased-is-the-bbc-17028 ) Not surprising seeing as Tory grandee Chris Patten is Chairman of the BBC Trust and David Cameron openly salivated over the 'delicious prospect' of BBC cuts. I think there is a slightly paranoid tendency to think that the BBC represents the opposite to whatever it is you/the individual represent. While it does adhere to some attributes you could deem as 'right' such as being pro-royal, nationalistic and very London orientated, I generally consider it to be fairly left-centre in it's political outlook. Its own labels of what is 'right' and what is 'left' is routinely wide of the mark and carry very subtle intrinsic double-meanings along with having a tendency to offer political opinion presented as news. A brief discourse analysis will show you that the term 'right-wing' will only ever be used to describe something negative or troublesome. 'The right wing BNP/EDL/Vladimir Putin'. As deplorable as people may find either of those entities, there is seldom very little that would classify any of them as 'right wing'. Read the BNP manifesto if you fancy a laugh; British jobs for British people, a return to industry. Sounds more old Labour than it does 'right-wing' to me. As for the EDL, they don't even have a manifesto so it does make me laugh whenever I hear them described as 'right-wing'. I must have missed the bit where they talk about their support for free market capitalism and influences in Friedman economics. However it'll roundly use the term 'left wing' as almost a badge of honour, describing Tony Benn as a 'left wing politician' and very recently Tony Robinson as a 'left-wing activist'. The Daily Mail operate within a market just like the fellow 'right wing' BNP operates within a democracy. You have the option to not buy the Daily Mail just as you do not vote for the BNP but we all have to pay a license fee and fund Auntie's pseudo-communist largely disagreeable and misleading political angles. Anyway I've digressed somewhat, think it's time for bed ![:)](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/smiley.png)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 9:19:03 GMT 1
British jobs for British people, a return to industry. If you substitute "British" for "German" I think you could also add the nazi party of 1930s Germany.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 26, 2014 13:05:27 GMT 1
British jobs for British people, a return to industry. If you substitute "British" for "German" I think you could also add the nazi party of 1930s Germany. Case in point. Fascist right or socialist left? Much of a muchness really.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 26, 2014 16:48:06 GMT 1
If you substitute "British" for "German" I think you could also add the nazi party of 1930s Germany. Case in point. Fascist right or socialist left? Much of a muchness really. Well no not really. There are some fundamental differences between Fascism/ National Socialism and left wing Socialists. Of course both systems had authoritative leaders, but that is where the similarity ends. Added to this the ‘left’ had/has different ideas around governing and had many different factions and interpretations of Marxism. I should also add that there are differences between Fascism and National Socialism.
|
|
|
Post by WindsorShrew on Feb 26, 2014 20:03:54 GMT 1
It is without doubt true that your political persuasion will have a bearing on any given political "headline".
i remember well the venom that was spouted on here at Andrew Mitchell and Jeremy Hunt by the " enlightened ones"......well those two gents weren't quite as bad as the lovely honest high class left wing papers would have had us believe.
surprised as well that no one has picked up on the Bliar decision to protect known terrorists from prosecution, typical Bliar just leaving another skid mark on his professional reputation.
Back to HH and the case in point does anybody know whether she or the others were aware of the aims of the peados ? Was there a filter selection in place to join or was it just "take the money and give em a banner" ? Probs much to do about nothing.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 26, 2014 23:22:48 GMT 1
Case in point. Fascist right or socialist left? Much of a muchness really. Well no not really. There are some fundamental differences between Fascism/ National Socialism and left wing Socialists. Of course both systems had authoritative leaders, but that is where the similarity ends. Added to this the ‘left’ had/has different ideas around governing and had many different factions and interpretations of Marxism. I should also add that there are differences between Fascism and National Socialism. Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I was making the correlation between fascism and national socialism, or the extreme left of socialism. Ofcourse there are differences, but the reason it is often described as a political spectrum is because the further you go one way the more likely you are to come out the other. Definitions, or 'BBC definitions' as I like to call them are a funny thing. In our society it is forbidden to call yourself a 'fascist' irrelevant of the context, but it is perfectly acceptable to label yourself a 'socialist' despite the word holding direct connotations to that of the Nazi party. Like I said; far right/far left much of a muchness. But the context in which the definitions are routinely used is the equivalent of trying to describe the colour of a tree as either 'blue' or 'red'.
|
|
|
Post by SeanBroseley on Feb 26, 2014 23:23:35 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 26, 2014 23:47:23 GMT 1
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 18:10:37 GMT 1
Well no not really. There are some fundamental differences between Fascism/ National Socialism and left wing Socialists. Of course both systems had authoritative leaders, but that is where the similarity ends. Added to this the ‘left’ had/has different ideas around governing and had many different factions and interpretations of Marxism. I should also add that there are differences between Fascism and National Socialism. Perhaps I didn't explain myself correctly. I was making the correlation between fascism and national socialism, or the extreme left of socialism. Ofcourse there are differences, but the reason it is often described as a political spectrum is because the further you go one way the more likely you are to come out the other. Definitions, or 'BBC definitions' as I like to call them are a funny thing. In our society it is forbidden to call yourself a 'fascist' irrelevant of the context, but it is perfectly acceptable to label yourself a 'socialist' despite the word holding direct connotations to that of the Nazi party. Like I said; far right/far left much of a muchness. But the context in which the definitions are routinely used is the equivalent of trying to describe the colour of a tree as either 'blue' or 'red'. The socialist in national is a misnomer. Some people may argue that Nazi Germany was a socialist state in terms of its economic policy, i.e. chaotic, but there are differences between socialism in its purest form. National Socialism was based on nationalism, racism and domination. Socialism (not communism) is based around community ownership and government control. Think about it - most western states practice a form of socialism.
|
|
|
Post by highlandshrew on Feb 27, 2014 18:54:08 GMT 1
Oh, is it really? Surely that would be a political circle? I think you will find that the reason it is often described as a 'political spectrum' has probably got more to do with the fact that the word spectrum means a band of colours - i.e. a metaphor for a range of opinions. Now then, can someone tell me where that ignore button is . . . .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 19:42:20 GMT 1
In our society it is forbidden to call yourself a 'fascist' irrelevant of the context Is it forbidden? By whom is it forbidden? Mightily undesirable and pretty unwise considering it's connections (rightly or wrongly) with hitler and what he did to the world 50 odd years ago, but I'm pretty sure it's not forbidden or illegal to label yourself a fascist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2014 21:07:47 GMT 1
|
|