P.I.E

[drew]

Make of this what you will.

https://www.scriptonitedaily.com/20...nised-paedophile-network-leads-back-to-no-10/

Fascinating and at the same time very frightening reading.

 

[drew]

.......or is it simply that the target has Labour associations, if it was a politician of the 'blue team' would you have the same enthusiasm to doubt the message or the messenger?

Oh dear! Most descent people would consider that condemnation of paedophilia transcends party politics!!!

 

[somerset]

Oh dear! Most descent people would consider that condemnation of paedophilia transcends party politics!!!

Of course, therefore, the questions directed at someone with ANY sort of links to such a heinous group, whoever is asking the questions, are surely right and proper..... surely?

 

[drew]

Of course, therefore, the questions directed at someone with ANY sort of links to such a heinous group, whoever is asking the questions, are surely right and proper..... surely?

Correct so why did you introduce political leanings?

 

[Machiavelli]

Might there be a general election in the not so distant future?
Might this be another attempt for The Daily Mail to invoke paedophilia, so it can provoke righteous indignation, and avoid dealing with it?

 

[clapham_gull]

Not new news and interesting that the Mail have jumped on it.

Grew up in the 70s too young to remember the organisation but vaguely remember a Roger Cook investigation.

The question to be answered is not about the NCCL but why the organisation was legal at all. This were very odd times though. The right flirting with some extremely dubious people and the left being infiltracted by similar.

Some thought that the Post Office had been infiltrated by communists. Luckily even in the 70s these wierdoes were quickly shut down.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Things on the radio today seemed to make it fairly clear that PIE had already been identified as an organisation that the NCCL wanted to rid itself of before Harriet Harman was even employed by them. Ms Harman herself said that the presence of PIE within the organisation did not affect or impinge on her work at all. Is there any reason to disbelieve her?

She has said that she regrets that PIE was involved with the NCCL, and maintains that she does not need to apologise. The NCCL has apologised, I believe, because it was the organisation that PIE belonged to. I would agree that the NCCL needed to apologise, but that ms Harman did not need to.

I think the whole thing shows the Mail up as the pathetic sh*t stirring rag that it really is. It is not a story.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Of course, therefore, the questions directed at someone with ANY sort of links to such a heinous group, whoever is asking the questions, are surely right and proper..... surely?

The links seem to be very spurious, and invented/exaggerated by the Mail.

 

[Machiavelli]

Things on the radio today seemed to make it fairly clear that PIE had already been identified as an organisation that the NCCL wanted to rid itself of before Harriet Harman was even employed by them. Ms Harman herself said that the presence of PIE within the organisation did not affect or impinge on her work at all. Is there any reason to disbelieve her?

She has said that she regrets that PIE was involved with the NCCL, and maintains that she does not need to apologise. The NCCL has apologised, I believe, because it was the organisation that PIE belonged to. I would agree that the NCCL needed to apologise, but that ms Harman did not need to.

I think the whole thing shows the Mail up as the pathetic sh*t stirring rag that it really is. It is not a story.

As I think you know David, the aim of most of the media is to deflect the attention of their readers/the public from what are the most important stories.

 

[Nibble]

Things on the radio today seemed to make it fairly clear that PIE had already been identified as an organisation that the NCCL wanted to rid itself of before Harriet Harman was even employed by them. Ms Harman herself said that the presence of PIE within the organisation did not affect or impinge on her work at all. Is there any reason to disbelieve her?

She has said that she regrets that PIE was involved with the NCCL, and maintains that she does not need to apologise. The NCCL has apologised, I believe, because it was the organisation that PIE belonged to. I would agree that the NCCL needed to apologise, but that ms Harman did not need to.

I think the whole thing shows the Mail up as the pathetic sh*t stirring rag that it really is. It is not a story.

Agreed. You'd think they may have been a bit more cautious after the whole Miliband debacle but they really cannot help themselves.

 

[somerset]

The links seem to be very spurious, and invented/exaggerated by the Mail.

Seem?.....

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Seem?.....

Yes - seem. I hardly think Harriet Harman could be seen as promoting or supporting paedophilia from this, which seems to be what the mail is getting at.

 

[somerset]

Yes - seem. I hardly think Harriet Harman could be seen as promoting or supporting paedophilia from this, which seems to be what the mail is getting at.

I certainly don't think she did support or promote it either, nor does the paper I suspect,.......but just as the Guardian would jump on a Conservative politician in the same circumstances, the Mail is making mischief....its their job.

 

[jgmcdee]

I saw Newsnight and the girl quizzing Harman was relentless, sensing this was her moment to make a name for herself.

Obviously didn't work, then.

 

[drew]

Seem?.....

Seems the DM's plan is working on you then! Mud sticks.

 

[pastafarian]

Yes - seem. I hardly think Harriet Harman could be seen as promoting or supporting paedophilia from this, which seems to be what the mail is getting at.

I have tried to be objective on this issue,i have read what the Mail have said with regards to Harman(and the other two) and the NCCL and i have read Harmans full statement.It seems Harman is twisting matters somewhat,she is denying claims against her that were not alleged against her in the first place.It does seem looking in that all she has done is kept as silent as possible on the matter for as long as possible then played "Anti Daily Mail Card" which is bound to get blind support.Why for example has she not played the "Anti Telegraph Card",they started this story well before the DM took it up.I also dont believe Harman has ever promoted or supported paedophilia,the issue surrounds her choice to work for an organisation that had ties to another organisation that did,which she knew about and therefore calls into question her judgement.

I think she has handled the situation very badly indeed,a politician of her caliber really should have been able to handle this better.

 

[drew]

I have tried to be objective on this issue,i have read what the Mail have said with regards to Harman(and the other two) and the NCCL and i have read Harmans full statement.It seems Harman is twisting matters somewhat,she is denying claims against her that were not alleged against her in the first place.It does seem looking in that all she has done is kept as silent as possible on the matter for as long as possible then played "Anti Daily Mail Card" which is bound to get blind support.Why for example has she not played the "Anti Telegraph Card",they started this story well before the DM took it up.I also dont believe Harman has ever promoted or supported paedophilia,the issue surrounds her choice to work for an organisation that had ties to another organisation that did,which she knew about and therefore calls into question her judgement.

I think she has handled the situation very badly indeed,a politician of her caliber really should have been able to handle this better.

Did she know about the link before she took the job? Notwithstanding that, I did read somewhere that even at that point, NCCL were trying to disassociate themselves from that group! I agree about the Telegraph but I think it is the manner in which the papers reported the story. As HH pointed out in her tweets, the DM is very hypocritical when it comes to treatment of young girls!!!

 

[The Large One]

I certainly don't think she did support or promote it either, nor does the paper I suspect,.......but just as the Guardian would jump on a Conservative politician in the same circumstances, the Mail is making mischief....its their job.

Is it?

There are stupid enough people in society who are prepared to take two and two and make it whatever they want (remember the paediatrician who had her house trashed because neighbours didn't know the difference between that and a paedophile...?). If she had been having an affair while in office that's one thing - this is asking readers to make up their minds about her implied involvement/approval of a paedophile network - a different, and more dangerous matter altogether.

The story has now bitten the Mail on the arse as it has highlighted their ongoing sexualisation of children on the Mail Online pages.

 

[somerset]

Is it?

There are stupid enough people in society who are prepared to take two and two and make it whatever they want (remember the paediatrician who had her house trashed because neighbours didn't know the difference between that and a paedophile...?). If she had been having an affair while in office that's one thing - this is asking readers to make up their minds about her implied involvement/approval of a paedophile network - a different, and more dangerous matter altogether.

The story has now bitten the Mail on the arse as it has highlighted their ongoing sexualisation of children on the Mail Online pages.

Of course, papers live and die by the validity or otherwise of the stories they print and methods they use to get them.........its called free speech, its called a free press.......if they cock up that's fine, they pay whatever price is due.

All my comments, are simply saying that those questions ( and that's what they are)..... are entitled to be asked of any public figure, just because it's the DM does that mean they are less valid?......... the Telegraph, and in fact the Independent also ran the story early too.

However it all boils down to politically motivated mischief making, and I am amazed that those of you purporting to be well informed, can't see that. I don't see the same level of angst when a Conservative MP is targeted by the Guardian, you know, that model of political neutrality.

 

[The Large One]

Of course, papers live and die by the validity or otherwise of the stories they print and methods they use to get them.........its called free speech, its called a free press.......if they cock up that's fine, they pay whatever price is due.

All my comments, are simply saying that those questions ( and that's what they are)..... are entitled to be asked of any public figure, just because it's the DM does that mean they are less valid?......... the Telegraph, and in fact the Independent also ran the story early too.

However it all boils down to politically motivated mischief making, and I am amazed that those of you purporting to be well informed, can't see that. I don't see the same level of angst when a Conservative MP is targeted by the Guardian, you know, that model of political neutrality.

We can all see it's politically motivated, which is why the Mail has to shout it, rather than bury it on Page 15.