Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Mrs Bear

Harperson On Newsnignt

Recommended Posts

It was about all these mail (?) stories over a paedophile org wanting the age of consent lowered to 10, being however loosely affiliated to the org she was then legal officer of. It is now Liberty.

Laura Kuensberg (sp?) was the terrier-like interviewer. . Harperson simply could not or would not say that yes, in hindsight it was a bad idea for this lot to be however loosely affiliated to her org. Again and again she slithered round the question like an oiled snake - albeit an uncomfortable one.

She was not being accused of personally having anything to do with this paedophile lot - simply whether in hindsight it was wrong and unwise for the org she worked for to have even the most tenuous link to them.

And she could not say it. What is it with these wretched politicians? Do their brains develop some sort of quirk that makes them unable to give a straight yes or no to any question that might however remotely be detrimental to their holier than thou standing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was about all these mail (?) stories over a paedophile org wanting the age of consent lowered to 10, being however loosely affiliated to the org she was then legal officer of. It is now Liberty.

Laura Kuensberg (sp?) was the terrier-like interviewer. . Harperson simply could not or would not say that yes, in hindsight it was a bad idea for this lot to be however loosely affiliated to her org. Again and again she slithered round the question like an oiled snake - albeit an uncomfortable one.

She was not being accused of personally having anything to do with this paedophile lot - simply whether in hindsight it was wrong and unwise for the org she worked for to have even the most tenuous link to them.

And she could not say it. What is it with these wretched politicians? Do their brains develop some sort of quirk that makes them unable to give a straight yes or no to any question that might however remotely be detrimental to their holier than thou standing?

Normally I'd agree. And at this point in the story cycle you'd think its on balance politically better for her to say 'yes in hindsight it was wrong', even if it risks an exaggerated implication.

But I actually feel a bit uncomfortable with this being a political football. Using paedophillia to get at a politician over something that in essence seems a bit of a non-story is where I'm getting the really nauseatingly distasteful slithering sensation...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuentsberg was excellent. She did some good reporting on the floods too.

Back in the late 60s, early 70s a lot of the "68" generations of lefties were quite into the free love, getting rid of the age of consent type thing. See the "History Man" as typical of the kind of mores that prevailed.

Harperson probably felt at the time she had to tolerate these people as part of the wider left wing diaspora. It is hard to believe she sympathised with them but the ends justify the means and all that. She was wrong, she made an error of judgement but she obviously holds the plebs in complete contempt like a lot of her kind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kuentsberg was excellent. She did some good reporting on the floods too.

Back in the late 60s, early 70s a lot of the "68" generations of lefties were quite into the free love, getting rid of the age of consent type thing. See the "History Man" as typical of the kind of mores that prevailed.

Harperson probably felt at the time she had to tolerate these people as part of the wider left wing diaspora. It is hard to believe she sympathised with them but the ends justify the means and all that. She was wrong, she made an error of judgement but she obviously holds the plebs in complete contempt like a lot of her kind.

Yes - I am old enough to remember the free love attitudes of the 60s and 70s, not to mention the sexism that funnily enough often went with it.

However I don't think Harperson is even being accused of being responsible for allowing the paedo lot to be affiliated. I didn't gather that it was even her own decision, but I may well be wrong there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What should the age of consent actually be?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_South_America#Argentina

Argentina the age of consent is 13 with certain caveats, so are they a nation of paedophiles (or Ephebophilia) or is our age of consent too high?

Any discussion about about lowering the age of consent in the UK immediately makes you a paedophile.

I have no idea what the age of consent should be but there is an issue that the age probably varies from person to person.

Politically it was stupid getting so involved with these groups but if you believe in free speech does everyone deserve a hearing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

However I don't think Harperson is even being accused of being responsible for allowing the paedo lot to be affiliated. I didn't gather that it was even her own decision, but I may well be wrong there.

I don't think she's done much, if anything, wrong in this case, it is hard to judge by today's standards but I just wish she could give a straight answer instead of slithering around the subject. As the OP said, it is very annoying. Not just HH but most politicians are the same. They spend so much time lying and obfuscating they can't answer even the most straightforward question.

I did appreciate her point about the DM sidebar though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harperson put her name to a document which called, among other things, for incest to be legalised.

i saw the video on Guido Fawkes before I watched it on iPlayer, and one of the comments was "Can you imagine that she would have stayed silent if one of the affiliated organisations was campaigning for rape to be legalised?"

I don't think she would have stayed silent, and that is why this trout should eb called to account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harperson put her name to a document which called, among other things, for incest to be legalised.

i saw the video on Guido Fawkes before I watched it on iPlayer, and one of the comments was "Can you imagine that she would have stayed silent if one of the affiliated organisations was campaigning for rape to be legalised?"

I don't think she would have stayed silent, and that is why this trout should eb called to account.

Why are the two things the same?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the two things the same?

They are not the same.

My point was that her defence was 'Oh, there was this organisation which I didn't really like, but it was the policy not to do anything.'

I am sure that given her well-known strength of feeling on rape that she damn well would have gone out of her way to get a pro-rape entity expelled. Which casts her lack of enthusiasm for doing the same to PIE all the more suspicious.

Well done Daily Mail for bringing this into the light and shame yet again on the BBC for only discussing it after it couldn't avoid it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not the same.

My point was that her defence was 'Oh, there was this organisation which I didn't really like, but it was the policy not to do anything.'

I am sure that given her well-known strength of feeling on rape that she damn well would have gone out of her way to get a pro-rape entity expelled. Which casts her lack of enthusiasm for doing the same to PIE all the more suspicious.

Well done Daily Mail for bringing this into the light and shame yet again on the BBC for only discussing it after it couldn't avoid it.

It's a complete straw-man. A pro-rape entity would never have existed or had any coherence as part of a civil liberties group. Tolerating a group that argued that there shouldn't be a law against consensual incest is not remotely comparable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a complete straw-man. A pro-rape entity would never have existed or had any coherence as part of a civil liberties group. Tolerating a group that argued that there shouldn't be a law against consensual incest is not remotely comparable.

I find it incredible that a pro-rape group might have existed. But then, I find it absolutely incredible that a pro-paedophilia group existed.

IMO they are most comparable.

And to be honest, I am surprised that millipede seemed to endorse her - most dangerous for him if this story goes on awhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it incredible that a pro-rape group might have existed. But then, I find it absolutely incredible that a pro-paedophilia group existed.

IMO they are most comparable.

Your post was about legalisation of incest. Do you still believe this is comparable to being 'pro-rape'?

Conflating a view on the legal status of something with being in favour of it is problematic in itself. To use an example you might appreciate, does believing there shouldn't be a law against Nazi salutes make you pro-holocaust?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your post was about legalisation of incest. Do you still believe this is comparable to being 'pro-rape'?

Conflating a view on the legal status of something with being in favour of it is problematic in itself. To use an example you might appreciate, does believing there shouldn't be a law against Nazi salutes make you pro-holocaust?

my whole point centred on the fact that HH is an activist busybody, and therefore I do not believe her defence that nobody regarded it as a big deal and that she had better things to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my whole point centred on the fact that HH is an activist busybody, and therefore I do not believe her defence that nobody regarded it as a big deal and that she had better things to do.

So no intellectual content at all. Thanks for confirming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro establishment news management from the state media. Pushing her on whether she should apologise for PIE being affiliated when that would never have been her decision to make. Not pushing her to say why her name was on documents. Not asking her who she discussed the documents with, who she knew to be members or supporters of PIE.

Now there's a big furore over the wrong part of the story and we all look away from the important bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro establishment news management from the state media. Pushing her on whether she should apologise for PIE being affiliated when that would never have been her decision to make. Not pushing her to say why her name was on documents. Not asking her who she discussed the documents with, who she knew to be members or supporters of PIE.

Now there's a big furore over the wrong part of the story and we all look away from the important bit.

Chuck another DJ on the fire would you?

Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it incredible that a pro-rape group might have existed. But then, I find it absolutely incredible that a pro-paedophilia group existed.

IMO they are most comparable.

+ 1.

Paedophiles have often tried to justify themselves by saying that the children consented, or even enjoyed it. They have conveniently chosen to ignore the fact that children have been too frightened to object or resist,, and too frightened/disgusted/ashamed to tell anybody.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is an old story, previously discussed on here even:

http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=170892

I don't particularly like Harman, and I didn't watch Newsnight, just wondering why the Mail is digging up the carcass of an old story.

The suspicion is Lynton Crosby is working the traditional Tory media behind the scenes.

The Tories are clearly desperately worried about the election as it appears they are not going to benefit from the implosion of the Lib Dems as they had hoped.

I expect they are hoping that paedo hating working class Labour voters are either going to defect to UKIP or abstain if they throw enough dirt at the middle and upper class politicians who now dominate the Labour party.

It is pretty low politics and also pretty dangerous too since if Harman did have the full SP on what PIE were upto in the 1970s then I expect that it would not just be the Labour party that would have cause to be worried

Personally I loath the Daily Mail and posh Labour apparatchiks such as Harman in equal measure so I dont have a dog in this fight though my advice to Miliband would be to employ more proletarian brusiers and less elite toffs from academia and elsewhere if he wants to stuff it up people like Cameron and Osborne

BTW worth mentioning again that the Mail has an unhealthy interest in paedophilia and even posts some what risqué pictures of young girls in its 'nonecebait side bar' on its web site. I dont know what that says about its editors, journalists or readers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Shapps launched new Tory campaign HQ today.

Preceded by attempted political take down last night.

It's almost as if there's an election looming and the Tories are way behind in the polls.

At least she was interviewed. How many times has Osborne deigned to be interviewed on Newsnight?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Article in the famously Conservative friendly Observer/Guardian

I thought the Rebekah Brooks trial would have perfectly illustrated that the media are in bed with the political establishment, rather than the blue team or red team specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pro establishment news management from the state media. Pushing her on whether she should apologise for PIE being affiliated when that would never have been her decision to make. Not pushing her to say why her name was on documents. Not asking her who she discussed the documents with, who she knew to be members or supporters of PIE.

Yep, I could accept that a group such as PIE could affiliate itself with a body such as NCCL without anyone really noticing them or understanding what they were about.

But if Harperson was unaware of them why was she campaigning for the effective legalisation of child pornography and the reduction in sentances for convicted offenders.

Telegraph blog: Harriet Harman owes the British public a full explanation about the NCCL's links with paedophile group

Harman, in her capacity as the NCCL's legal officer, petitioned the Home Office to reduce sentences for convicted paedophiles and urged the Crown not to prosecute people found in possession of naked pictures of children unless it could be proven that the children in question had been harmed

Also

Harman's colleague, the former Labour Health Secretary Patricia Hewitt, was the general secretary of the NCCL in 1976 when the organisation submitted the following "evidence" to Parliament: “Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage… The real need is a change in the attitude which assumes that all cases of paedophilia result in lasting damage.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   219 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.