Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
SlickWilly

Harriet Harman Denies She And Her Husband Ever Supported Paedophile Org

44 posts in this topic

Harriet Harman has been very forward in suggesting that punters need to be criminalised ala the Swedish model and nearly got away with it last time out, well she appears to be in the middle of a big controversy sexually related at the moment!

Over the last few days The Daily Mail has published some articles which have suggested that Harman and her husband and another staunch Fake Socialist Party member, while prominent in The Council For Civil Liberties (now known as Liberty) gave support to an infamous organisation, PIE, which wanted among other things to lower the age of consent to 10 years old!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

She formally broke her silence on Newsnight tonight and even attacked the Daily Mail suggesting it was showing titilating pictures of young women!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

TBH her arrogance is beyond my comprehension and I believe her positon is untenable and she must resign and I bet she won't!

It's more than a bit rich for this individual to speak about further criminalising prostitution, in particular clients, which she seems to have a virtual frothing at the mouth interest in doing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harriet Harman has been very forward in suggesting that punters need to be criminalised ala the Swedish model and nearly got away with it last time out, well she appears to be in the middle of a big controversy sexually related at the moment!

Over the last few days The Daily Mail has published some articles which have suggested that Harman and her husband and another staunch Fake Socialist Party member, while prominent in The Council For Civil Liberties (now known as Liberty) gave support to an infamous organisation, PIE, which wanted among other things to lower the age of consent to 10 years old!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2523526/How-Labour-Deputy-Harriet-Harman-shadow-minister-husband-Health-Secretary-Patricia-Hewitt-linked-group-lobbying-right-sex-children.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

She formally broke her silence on Newsnight tonight and even attacked the Daily Mail suggesting it was showing titilating pictures of young women!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10659100/Harriet-Harman-Jack-Dromey-Patricia-Hewitt-and-the-Paedophile-Information-Exchange.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/24/harriet-harman-daily-mail-paedophile-campaign-allegations

TBH her arrogance is beyond my comprehension and I believe her positon is untenable and she must resign and I bet she won't!

It's more than a bit rich for this individual to speak about further criminalising prostitution, in particular clients, which she seems to have a virtual frothing at the mouth interest in doing!

Great to see Harridan getting some heat today. This issue has come up before in the media over the years but the DM seems to be really gunning for her at present. I am not a fan of the DM but on this i hope they continue. A truly horrific dreadful woman.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst some of her, and her husband's defences are valid e.g. That anybody could be affiliated with the NCCL by paying the fee, she does have her work cut out regarding proposed legislation i.e. A law that would have required police/prosecutors to show specific harm in order to class an image of a child as indecent, and a law that would have meant sex with a 10 year old could be legal if you showed the child had freely consented. She was the person responsible for writing those proposals and I've seen nothing to explain them away...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry - slight mistake in my above posting. The age of consent proposal wasn't hers (the child porn one was signed by her though) but it was an official NCCL proposal which remained in force when she was their legal officer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst some of her, and her husband's defences are valid e.g. That anybody could be affiliated with the NCCL by paying the fee, she does have her work cut out regarding proposed legislation i.e. A law that would have required police/prosecutors to show specific harm in order to class an image of a child as indecent, and a law that would have meant sex with a 10 year old could be legal if you showed the child had freely consented. She was the person responsible for writing those proposals and I've seen nothing to explain them away...

In most organisations, The Fake Socialist party aside, she would be gone, her position being completely untenable!

To think that she is the Home Secretary elect and Deputy PM in waiting is beyond shocking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst some of her, and her husband's defences are valid e.g. That anybody could be affiliated with the NCCL by paying the fee, she does have her work cut out regarding proposed legislation i.e. A law that would have required police/prosecutors to show specific harm in order to class an image of a child as indecent, and a law that would have meant sex with a 10 year old could be legal if you showed the child had freely consented. She was the person responsible for writing those proposals and I've seen nothing to explain them away...

 

If she feels that the Daily Mail is maligning her character, and the accusations of her complicity in promoting paedophile behaviour should rate as a pretty malign accusation if false, then she has the option open to her to announce that she will sue the Mail for libel.  I imagine that if she won such a case that the award against the Mail would be at the top end.

 

Whilst sometimes it is better to ignore untruthful accusations, I would have thought that these particular accusations are so serious that nothing short of a successful libel action would be sufficent for Ms Harman and co. to truly rebut this in the mind of the public at large. Failure to pursue that course and to instead resort to generalised bluster and denial is not really good enough imo.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

here's the interview from Newsnight, since it's not on iplayer just yet.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she feels that the Daily Mail is maligning her character, and the accusations of her complicity in promoting paedophile behaviour should rate as a pretty malign accusation if false, then she has the option open to her to announce that she will sue the Mail for libel.  I imagine that if she won such a case that the award against the Mail would be at the top end.

 

Whilst sometimes it is better to ignore untruthful accusations, I would have thought that these particular accusations are so serious that nothing short of a successful libel action would be sufficent for Ms Harman and co. to truly rebut this in the mind of the public at large. Failure to pursue that course and to instead resort to generalised bluster and denial is not really good enough imo.

 

Well it is unarguable that she's a signatory to a proposal that would have effectively meant only images of rapes etc. would have been illegal. Any "simple nude", or even an explicit nude image of a child would have been legal unless they could show harm...which would have been impossible if the child couldn't be identified and spoken to. It could even have meant that as long as The Sun/Sport/Star newspapers were careful that they could have had young girls of 13 etc. on page 3. They weren't above having 15 year olds on page 3 in a bikini, leading up to topless shoots at 16 e.g. Linsey Dawn McKenzie in the 90s. So they would have done it, no doubt, if they'd felt it would increase circulation. It would have been a mistake not far below the one made by Denmark when they made all pornography legal, and forgot to include an exception for child porn. For the next 10-15 years Denmark was the child porn capital of the world. In fact worse, since at least Denmark's error was a genuine failure of joined up thinking....Harman's was far more explicit in what it proposed and it should have been far more obvious what the ramifications would be.

Edited by punter992005
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If she feels that the Daily Mail is maligning her character, and the accusations of her complicity in promoting paedophile behaviour should rate as a pretty malign accusation if false, then she has the option open to her to announce that she will sue the Mail for libel.  I imagine that if she won such a case that the award against the Mail would be at the top end.

 

Whilst sometimes it is better to ignore untruthful accusations, I would have thought that these particular accusations are so serious that nothing short of a successful libel action would be sufficent for Ms Harman and co. to truly rebut this in the mind of the public at large. Failure to pursue that course and to instead resort to generalised bluster and denial is not really good enough imo.

 

Its actually not the mails story. Paul Stines on his order-order website has been bringing this to attention for some months.  And it was stines who has been digging into naughty MP's for some time. It was he who uncovered McShane.

 

For thiose who are sceptical its worth reading WIKI on NCCL and PIE.I'm not sure using the smear defence is enough for the Dromeys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its actually not the mails story. Paul Stines on his order-order website has been bringing this to attention for some months. And it was stines who has been digging into naughty MP's for some time. It was he who uncovered McShane.

For thiose who are sceptical its worth reading WIKI on NCCL and PIE.I'm not sure using the smear defence is enough for the Dromeys.

The allegations aren't new in any respect, they've been known about for years and they were mentioned on here a few years ago. Neither the DM nor this person you've mentioned "uncovered them". This is just the first time a paper's had the balls to put it on the frontpage repeatedly and not instantly forgotten about it. Edited by punter992005

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The allegations aren't new in any respect, they've been known about for years and they were mentioned on here a few years ago. Neither the DM nor this person you've mentioned "uncovered them". This is just the first time a paper's had the balls to put it on the frontpage repeatedly and not instantly forgotten about it.

Though she and her gang deserve everything they get it just happens to take centre stage just when the Tories are struggling in the polls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harridan has now said she regrets that The National Council for Civil Liberties granted an affliate status to PIE. Later her spokeswoman said Harridan regrets the existence of the PIE.

 

I hope the DM carry on with this, its great to see Harridan getting some more heat. No talk yet of suing i note.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harman's defence is pathetic. She makes it sound as if she hardly knew they were there.

I was a member of the NCCL at the time. I let my membership lapse precisely over this issue. I was a first-year university student at the time. Didn't take much to realise the organization was to not to be touched with a barge-pole.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the woman who once said in response to being asked if she could be PM (Prime Minister's Questions Aug 2008):

 

It wouldn't be possible because there aren't enough airports for all the men who'd want to flee the country.

 

And the same woman who's been warned over exaggerating the pay gap and convictions for rapes-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/7442785/Rape-conviction-rate-figures-misleading.html

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8096761.stm

 

If Labour get voted in then she will turn the country into a radical feminist hellhole. Her alone is reason enough not to vote Labour.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harman's defence is pathetic. She makes it sound as if she hardly knew they were there.

I was a member of the NCCL at the time. I let my membership lapse precisely over this issue. I was a first-year university student at the time. Didn't take much to realise the organization was to not to be touched with a barge-pole.

No defence now, she has gone on the counter attack saying she wants an apology off the DM. So she regrets PIE were affliates with the NCCL but says they were already affiiates before she started at the NCCL. The fact PIE paid money to the NCCL, even if that money might of been a very low amount shows how she and others that agreed to continue to have PIE as affliates were thinking at the time.

 

The fact is noncing was a crime then as it is now yet PIE was lobbying for it and being connected to the NCCL gave them some credibility to some people. Well done Mr Bloom for lapsing your membership.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In most organisations, The Fake Socialist party aside, she would be gone, her position being completely untenable!

To think that she is the Home Secretary elect and Deputy PM in waiting is beyond shocking!

I think you are over exaggerating her importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are over exaggerating her importance.

If Labour get back in in 2015 its very likely Harridan would get one of the very top jobs in my view, assuming this matter doesnt derail her. Home Secretary could be one of them. She is the most prominent female at the top of Labour and has been for a long time. I dont agree he was exaggerating her importance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

surely anyone with any nous, if they found out the people they worked for were linked to something well dodgy, would resign immediately.  That is the question the dromeys and hewitt should answer.

 

but as she signed a paper legalising owning pornographic images of children, I think there are questions about how repulsive she found the PIE.

 

So she thinks a 'liberal' attitude to sex and children, but wants to crack down on prostitution.  Well that makes her a rank hypocrite IMHO.

 

I am not sure millipede did himself favours backing her today.  He may have to retract that in the coming days.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So she thinks a 'liberal' attitude to sex and children, but wants to crack down on prostitution.

 

Good point. A liberal stance on sex and children yet her stance on adults engaging in prostitution is anything but liberal. Makes you wonder doesn't it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Labour get back in in 2015 its very likely Harridan would get one of the very top jobs in my view, assuming this matter doesnt derail her. Home Secretary could be one of them. She is the most prominent female at the top of Labour and has been for a long time. I dont agree he was exaggerating her importance.

The first word in your post is a huge assumption which is so unlikely as to be regarded as impossible. That's why I wrote what I did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first word in your post is a huge assumption which is so unlikely as to be regarded as impossible. That's why I wrote what I did.

Glad you are so sure, i wish i was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are over exaggerating her importance.

Unfortunately, for The British people both men and women (she has nowt in common with real women at all, NOWT!), I am not exagerrating her significance in The Fake Socialist Party, indeed she is their most prominent Fake!

It's amazing, she hasn't even threatened to sue, nothing these days has the potential to destroy You, more than linking You to child molesters/child molesting! Mind you, she will not resign and will brazen it out to the end, I guarantee You that!

It's on NewsNight again now!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironic that she actually did good and valuable work for Gay rights, while today she wants the male clients of fully consenting female sex workers, it seems uncanily familiar to the way gay adult males in particular were treted back in the day!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harman's defence is pathetic. She makes it sound as if she hardly knew they were there.

I was a member of the NCCL at the time. I let my membership lapse precisely over this issue. I was a first-year university student at the time. Didn't take much to realise the organization was to not to be touched with a barge-pole.

 

 

At best Ms Harman can say that she only had a limited amount of influence, but thus far she appears to be opting for a mixture of bluster and attack.  The continuing lack of a writ for libel indicates imo a tacit acknowledgement that her position is weak.

 

So Ms. Harman deprecates some of the images published by the Mail.  I cannot say I am a fan either, but the Mail is not alone in publishing images of scantily clad people.  IIRC Mr. Richard Desmond of Northern & Shell, and publisher of the Daily Express and Daily Star, also makes money from such activities.  Indeed he publishes a range of pornographic magazines, and runs several Adult TV channels.  Yet this very same Mr Desmond donated £100,000 to New Labour, and even described himself in an interview as a "socialist" :rolleyes:

 

Now, when this latter event occurred Ms. Harman did have a position of significant influence in the Labour Party.  I never heard her speak up against the acceptance of this donation, or did she do it so quietly behind closed doors that it had no effect?

 

 

#HypocriteHarman is trending.

 

What more can I say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0