|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 0:22:10 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by kuliloach on Feb 25, 2014 0:38:06 GMT 1
Just to let you know, I really think you are ruining this message board. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 0:41:11 GMT 1
Interesting POV albeit one that completely ignores the issue.
Care to elaborate?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 9:09:27 GMT 1
This is a prime example of why I have stopped reading daily newspapers. Hypocrites. The editor is renowned for his base language. His editorial meetings are known as "The Vagina Monologues". Have they ever apologised for supporting Oswald Moseley and the British Union of Fascists pre 2nd World War?
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Feb 25, 2014 9:10:03 GMT 1
Here we go again Leicestershrew with his bigoted views looking at one side of a story and totally ignoring the other side. Where is your reference to Harman's denial and accusation of a smear campaign by the salacious Daily Mail, or the denial that PIE had any influence on NCCL policy, or that the NCCL Board kicked PIE out, or that NCCL fully supported the Labour Goverment's legislation to outlaw child pornography. But I guess that does not fit in with your agenda. Maybe you'd like to comment on this allegation made by the Times www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26333729
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Feb 25, 2014 9:30:20 GMT 1
I'm not quite sure why this one has suddenly surfaced again - story has been around for a fair few years now and I think was first raised, by of all people David Ike
I've got a feeling my student union were also an affiliate of the NCCL in the 80s - you sent in a few pounds membership and got their news letter. It was a pretty loose affiliate grouping as I recall it with thousands of members.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 9:36:31 GMT 1
If HH is found to have done anything wrong, legally or morally, then simply, she has to go and rightly answer to the law for any crimes committed.
Personally I'm a little confused from all that what it is specifically she has done / not done. Is this guilt by association (still not good I accept) or has she personally supported paedophillia.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Feb 25, 2014 9:50:52 GMT 1
The main dislike I have of the Daily Mail is that it swans around trying to convince everyone that it is a quality paper. It isn't - it's a tabloid short and simple Andy whether they are right or wrong in this case they are a dreadful, bigoted bunch who should at least be honest enough to admit what they are.
|
|
|
Post by ssshrew on Feb 25, 2014 9:53:00 GMT 1
Oh and apart from that - do they actually have anything to tell me about my beloved football team? ......... No I thought not ....... So to quote words the audience had to shout out at a pantomime I went to last week - Boring!!!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 10:16:34 GMT 1
Obviously your stance on this issue is very much dependant on your political persuasion. Don't knock LS, we all know which side of the fence his allegiances lie, but this thread at least provides ammunition for all to fire or dodge. And it gives us all a nice respite from the current problems with our club.
Must admit that i was very disappointed to hear HH defend herself on T.V. this morning, hitting back at the press for their double standards, " they print pictures of young girls in bikinis". They may well do Harriet, but these young ladies are at least of teen-age years, are not coerced into taking part, and show nothing more than you will see on a hot sunny day at your local beach. A million miles away from paedophilia. As a defence or retort against accusations made against her, very poor Harriet, must do better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 10:55:12 GMT 1
Obviously your stance on this issue is very much dependant on your political persuasion. Don't knock LS, we all know which side of the fence his allegiances lie, but this thread at least provides ammunition for all to fire or dodge. And it gives us all a nice respite from the current problems with our club. Must admit that i was very disappointed to hear HH defend herself on T.V. this morning, hitting back at the press for their double standards, " they print pictures of young girls in bikinis". They may well do Harriet, but these young ladies are at least of teen-age years, are not coerced into taking part, and show nothing more than you will see on a hot sunny day at your local beach. A million miles away from paedophilia. As a defence or retort against accusations made against her, very poor Harriet, must do better. Agree. Political allegiances aside, it would be so much easier to respect politicians if they put their hands up and admitted when they had got something wrong, acted badly, made the wrong choice ect, instead of always using double speak, slight of hand or side stepping. Simple answer to a simple question. Personally I would love to be able to argue the toss with LS about this and point out lots of stuff in her defence, but it's a bit of a struggle to be honest, though as I've already said, that's partly because I'm not too sure about the detail of what's being alleged.
|
|
|
Post by floreat2 on Feb 25, 2014 11:10:05 GMT 1
Matron,
it's the Daily Mail putting two and two together and getting a hundred again. HH was a member of a group which PIE affiliated themselves to, and this makes her a kiddy fiddler in that rags eyes.
|
|
|
Post by camdenshrew on Feb 25, 2014 11:18:57 GMT 1
I can't stand the Daily Mail - a scaremongering, bigoted rag appealing to people's worst instincts and fears.
However, I'm not a particularly big fan of Harman either. Who can forget her call for all-female shortlists in Labour safe seats, er, except Birmingham Erdington when her husband was selected?
On this particular issue, there seems to be a lot of noise and confusion but if she has been the subject of a vile smear then why isn't she suing for libel?
|
|
|
Post by floreat2 on Feb 25, 2014 11:40:04 GMT 1
I doubt she'd have a case for libel, they're more implying guilt by association. It's a bit like the Daily Mirror finding someone whose been found guilty of violent offences and is a member of the Conservative party and saying that this proved that Cameron is a violent thug.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 12:03:16 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Feb 25, 2014 12:03:52 GMT 1
This morning on Radio 4, that well known right wing Journalist (Matron will confirm ),Kevin Maguire commented that she did not help herself on Newsnight with her "performance" and why she and her Husband Mr Dopey........err sorry Dromey could not just come out and acknowledge that they had made errors of judgement by association he could not understand. Mr Maguire followed this up by saying that he was convinced that if this story related to the Conservative Party he felt that the Mail would be pursuing them just as vehemently, so either Maguire has had a personality transplant or he actually feels that despite it being the Daily Mail that he feels there investigative journalism can obviously be of merit on occasion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 12:32:06 GMT 1
Sorry Minor, but I've never heard of him. But I have pointed out many times that I do not read (and never have) any daily papers, so I guess I can be forgiven
|
|
|
Post by floreat2 on Feb 25, 2014 12:32:30 GMT 1
Thanks for that link Matron, I'll be sending off for a Milfs Of Waitrose calendar later.
|
|
|
Post by Minormorris64 on Feb 25, 2014 12:41:40 GMT 1
Sorry Minor, but I've never heard of him. But I have pointed out many times that I do not read (and never have) any daily papers, so I guess I can be forgiven Forgiven you are, but just to enlighten you: Kevin Maguire (born 1961, South Shields) is a British political journalist, currently Associate Editor at the Daily Mirror newspaper. Earlier in his career Maguire was Chief Reporter for The Guardian.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Feb 25, 2014 13:30:01 GMT 1
Mr Maguire followed this up by saying that he was convinced that if this story related to the Conservative Party he felt that the Mail would be pursuing them just as vehemently, so either Maguire has had a personality transplant or he actually feels that despite it being the Daily Mail that he feels there investigative journalism can obviously be of merit on occasion. I guess you don't do sarcasm!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by blue and ambar on Feb 25, 2014 13:32:37 GMT 1
I doubt she'd have a case for libel, they're more implying guilt by association. It's a bit like the Daily Mirror finding someone whose been found guilty of violent offences and is a member of the Conservative party and saying that this proved that Cameron is a violent thug. Although a completely different issue it does remind me of 'guilt by association' with relevance to football supporters on another thread. Being part of an association, company or other group of people doesnt make you guilty unless you had significant control over their actions. As for this issue I don't know the finer details but it should be about whether she is to blame personally on any wrongdoing not whether the organisation did so on the actions of others.
|
|
|
Post by kuliloach on Feb 25, 2014 13:37:51 GMT 1
Obviously your stance on this issue is very much dependant on your political persuasion. Don't knock LS, we all know which side of the fence his allegiances lie, but this thread at least provides ammunition for all to fire or dodge. And it gives us all a nice respite from the current problems with our club. Must admit that i was very disappointed to hear HH defend herself on T.V. this morning, hitting back at the press for their double standards, " they print pictures of young girls in bikinis". They may well do Harriet, but these young ladies are at least of teen-age years, are not coerced into taking part, and show nothing more than you will see on a hot sunny day at your local beach. A million miles away from paedophilia. As a defence or retort against accusations made against her, very poor Harriet, must do better. www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2054386/Inside-Courtney-Stoddens-photo-album-Teen-bride-joined-sisters-bikini-modelling-shoot-aged-12.html
|
|
|
Post by shrewsace on Feb 25, 2014 13:40:48 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.
|
|
|
Post by Dancin on Feb 25, 2014 13:42:46 GMT 1
Between now and May 2015 this won't be last story to surface before the next General Election.
|
|
|
Post by mattmw on Feb 25, 2014 14:05:13 GMT 1
At least she has the guts to go on Newsnight - something the owner of the Daily Mail constantly refuses to do.
Having read these stories I'm still a little puzzled at what she is alleged to have done? PIE become affiliated to the NCCL before she joined and she doesn't appear to have given them legal advise in her role as a lawyer for NCCL; and actively campaigned against them when it was revealed some of its members were exchanging pornography.
Seems one of those stories where if you not openly critical of something your somehow seen to be condoning it which is a bit of a leap for me.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 14:48:16 GMT 1
Here we go again Leicestershrew with his bigoted views looking at one side of a story and totally ignoring the other side. Where is your reference to Harman's denial and accusation of a smear campaign by the salacious Daily Mail, or the denial that PIE had any influence on NCCL policy, or that the NCCL Board kicked PIE out, or that NCCL fully supported the Labour Goverment's legislation to outlaw child pornography. But I guess that does not fit in with your agenda. Maybe you'd like to comment on this allegation made by the Times www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26333729Harman has of course denied any wrongdoing but accepts that a child sex group was allowed to join her civil liberties organisation in the 1970's and the relationship was as an 'affiliation' between the two. The natural right of reply will always be calling out a 'smear campaign' and bringing up the previous Miliband issue. It is both a food and drink response to make and one the Mail have gifted to any Labour politician that may or many not be subject of a so-called 'smear campaign' in the future. 'Well look what happened with Miliband'. Why would I want to comment on an allegation made by the Times? And how is reporting of a story that has made the national news today 'bigoted'? I suppose the threads on Gove's teaching reforms and the Guantanamo Bay suspect are bigoted too are they?. Empty, empty words shrewed46. I'd also love to know what you consider to be my 'agenda'. In reference to what Billy said who as a poster I have a lot of time for, I'm on neither side of any fence. I suppose you've linked me a story about a Tory MP because you think as a seasoned Conservative supporter it's one likely to make me blush or incensed with rage at someone tempting to 'smear' one of my favourite politicians. Couldn't be further from the truth, but it wouldn't be the first time you've been grossly mistaken or far wide of the mark on these pages would it?. It would be great to know your thoughts on the topic but I would imagine your political affinities restrict you from having an impartial, worthwhile view. Instead your argument seems to lack complete coherence and only consists of piping up about a rival MP's expense claims. In other news, bears s**t in the woods.
|
|
|
Post by shrewed46 on Feb 25, 2014 15:17:35 GMT 1
Leicestershrew, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." your selective political postings indicate an intolerance to many groups including members of the labour party and the trade unions just to name two.
So Harman was employed by an organisation to which PIE was affiliated only the Daily Mail could run a front page story for 4 days on what I consider an irrelevant story. There are far more important issues in this country like poverty which need addressing but I don't see you or the Daily Mail leading a campaign to feed the hungry in the near future.
Maybe it would help if sometimes you read stories that were quoted about one of your favourite politicians and then maybe you'd understand that the allegation has nothing to do with expense claims but to a fraudulent claims for social care.
Hopefully one day you will realise that no one party has all the answers, but I guess to that day we'll have to put up with your bigotry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 15:23:29 GMT 1
At least she has the guts to go on Newsnight - something the owner of the Daily Mail constantly refuses to do. Having read these stories I'm still a little puzzled at what she is alleged to have done? PIE become affiliated to the NCCL before she joined and she doesn't appear to have given them legal advise in her role as a lawyer for NCCL; and actively campaigned against them when it was revealed some of its members were exchanging pornography. Seems one of those stories where if you not openly critical of something your somehow seen to be condoning it which is a bit of a leap for me. He is too busy!!! living abroad to pay his fair share of UK tax. Thus, does he approve of the jingoism always present in the Daily Mail. Another hypocrite.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2014 15:28:32 GMT 1
Harman has of course denied any wrongdoing but accepts that a child sex group was allowed to join her civil liberties organisation in the 1970's and the relationship was as an 'affiliation' between the two. Though I'm still unsure about what it is she is supposed to have done exactly (seriously LS, I'd be grateful if you can spell it out for me!), I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that PIE joined NCCL before HH took up her role, and NCCL wasn't "her" organisation.
|
|
|
Post by QuorndonShrew on Feb 25, 2014 15:48:52 GMT 1
Harman has of course denied any wrongdoing but accepts that a child sex group was allowed to join her civil liberties organisation in the 1970's and the relationship was as an 'affiliation' between the two. Though I'm still unsure about what it is she is supposed to have done exactly (seriously LS, I'd be grateful if you can spell it out for me!), I'm pretty sure from what I've seen that PIE joined NCCL before HH took up her role, and NCCL wasn't "her" organisation. 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. She has stated regret at the fact that any member could join the NCCL and make itself an affiliate of but her principle argument seems to be that it didn't get in the way of her work so wasn't affected by it. Which given the seriousness of the allegations seems a bit of a strange strategy to adopt if you ask me and is why she hasn't got too much sympathy given her performance on Newsnight last night. 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.
|
|