Cameron saying "no coalition" is a way of maximising the Con vote.
It means that all those LD voters who prefer Con to Lab will think they have to vote Con to get Con - as LDs will go with Lab.
OK, more LD voters prefer Lab to Con but never mind - even if 1/3 prefer Con to Lab it helps him get that 1/3.
It also helps get UKIP voters back - making them think that it will be more of a pure Con Government.
Of course it's high risk but even if result is the same as last time it would still be hard to form a Lab/LD coalition.
Also, if the election is close (which is what Cameron needs to optimize for) Con will be tied or have a small vote share lead in the polls. He'll be able to appeal to floating voters to vote Con to provide a decisive result by voting for the leading party, avoiding an unstable minority government. Obviously voting Con in this situation won't really have this result - it'll instead make NOM more likely. But the voters won't know that because they don't understand how FPTP works.
Because it's a crime to claim benefits that you (and your family) aren't allowed to claim for.
I believe the council have a statutory duty to provide care, in the first instance, irrespective of the means of the claimant.
If the claimant is subsequently found to have concealed or disposed of property "deprivation of assets", the normal course is a civil recovery under the explicit provisions of either CRAG (1992) or HASSASSA (1983), or in extreme cases, under the Insolvency Act (1986).
I have never heard of the Police becoming involved, although I have not read the details of Bone's case...
Because it's a crime to claim benefits that you (and your family) aren't allowed to claim for.
I believe the council have a statutory duty to provide care, in the first instance, irrespective of the means of the claimant.
If the claimant is subsequently found to have concealed or disposed of property "deprivation of assets", the normal course is a civil recovery under the explicit provisions of either CRAG (1992) or HASSASSA (1983), or in extreme cases, under the Insolvency Act (1986).
I have never heard of the Police becoming involved, although I have not read the details of Bone's case...
Buy a copy of the Times, it all make sense to you.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Because it's a crime to claim benefits that you (and your family) aren't allowed to claim for.
I believe the council have a statutory duty to provide care, in the first instance, irrespective of the means of the claimant.
If the claimant is subsequently found to have concealed or disposed of property "deprivation of assets", the normal course is a civil recovery under the explicit provisions of either CRAG (1992) or HASSASSA (1983), or in extreme cases, under the Insolvency Act (1986).
I have never heard of the Police becoming involved, although I have not read the details of Bone's case...
Buy a copy of the Times, it all make sense to you.
I guess it hinges on alleged non-disclosure or concealment of assets.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Starting to make their hit job on Red Ed look like small fry.
One question I wonder is, why now?
This isn't a new story, I remember reading about the history of those being named ages ago, and they have been high profile politicians for a very very long time. As far as I can tell no new twist / evidence against those being named is being presented.
Starting to make their hit job on Red Ed look like small fry.
One question I wonder is, why now?
This isn't a new story, I remember reading about the history of those being named ages ago, and they have been high profile politicians for a very very long time. As far as I can tell no new twist / evidence against those being named is being presented.
Maybe the Savile stuff has grabbed the public interest and the Mail thought it was time to bring this to the public attention. Most of us knew about it but not sure the wider public did.
Whoever advised Harman to go on Newsnight called it wrong, she was very weak and seemed shifty, if she had nothing to worry about I would have thought she would be more convincing.
Because it's a crime to claim benefits that you (and your family) aren't allowed to claim for.
I believe the council have a statutory duty to provide care, in the first instance, irrespective of the means of the claimant.
If the claimant is subsequently found to have concealed or disposed of property "deprivation of assets", the normal course is a civil recovery under the explicit provisions of either CRAG (1992) or HASSASSA (1983), or in extreme cases, under the Insolvency Act (1986).
I have never heard of the Police becoming involved, although I have not read the details of Bone's case...
Buy a copy of the Times, it all make sense to you.
I guess it hinges on alleged non-disclosure or concealment of assets.
you obviously are unable to see thro your own bias. She made a mess of the interview and it didn't help her cause.
Unlike your good self who always give a fair and unbiased view on Labour Party policy and politicians. Pot please meet kettle and can you stop calling him black.
Spiked-online take an interesting perspective. With all their calls for apologies for past events (slavery, bloody sunday etc) Lefties have little room to refuse an apology over PIE. The defence of events being seen in the context of their times is sauce for the goose as well as the gander.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Can you say what the serious accusation is please?
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Nigel, yet again you let your bias take over your argument. Show me where I said the accusations are not serious and should be dismissed out of hand. Please quote me. What I said was no matter what any Non-Tory politician says in an interview is always "a bad interview/very bad interview or poor interview". Sometimes you get a less bias commentary on politician interviews on ConHome than you do with posters here.
Any quote by me dismissing the accusations or saying they are not serious would do by the way.
Luckily, as far as I can tell it turns out to be, as so often, a complete fabrication by the Guardian. Thank heavens for that. Gove hasn't gone Miliband-style-barmy after all.
Spiked-online take an interesting perspective. With all their calls for apologies for past events (slavery, bloody sunday etc) Lefties have little room to refuse an apology over PIE. The defence of events being seen in the context of their times is sauce for the goose as well as the gander.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Spiked-online take an interesting perspective. With all their calls for apologies for past events (slavery, bloody sunday etc) Lefties have little room to refuse an apology over PIE. The defence of events being seen in the context of their times is sauce for the goose as well as the gander.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Good piece that. Where has defender of the people Tom Watson disappeared to?
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
SMukesh
If you really want information here it is from the Spiked article linked by Dr. Sox:
Still, the Daily Mail has been feasting on the NCCL archives as if they were full of material from last week: ‘Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”; the NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to 10 – if the child consented and “understood the nature of the act”; it called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a “Lolita’s charter”; the NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved”; it filed a submission to parliament claiming that childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage; Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws; NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.’
I somewhat regret posting that paragraph out of context as the rest of the article is far wiser. But these are the 'facts' as the author sees them.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Can you say what the serious accusation is please?
'NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship”. She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
SMukesh
If you really want information here it is from the Spiked article linked by Dr. Sox:
Still, the Daily Mail has been feasting on the NCCL archives as if they were full of material from last week: ‘Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”; the NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to 10 – if the child consented and “understood the nature of the act”; it called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a “Lolita’s charter”; the NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved”; it filed a submission to parliament claiming that childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage; Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws; NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.’
I somewhat regret posting that paragraph out of context as the rest of the article is far wiser. But these are the 'facts' as the author sees them.
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
This is the info provided on the first day of this story.Nothing new has really been said in the last 3 days.Now that Harman and Dromey have offered a rebuttal,the Mail should publish evidence to show they are false if they are indeed false!
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Nigel, yet again you let your bias take over your argument. Show me where I said the accusations are not serious and should be dismissed out of hand. Please quote me. What I said was no matter what any Non-Tory politician says in an interview is always "a bad interview/very bad interview or poor interview". Sometimes you get a less bias commentary on politician interviews on ConHome than you do with posters here.
Any quote by me dismissing the accusations or saying they are not serious would do by the way.
Square Root has summed you up much better than I can.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Can you say what the serious accusation is please?
How dim are you?
Pretty dim.Answer the question if you will,please!
'NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship”. She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
What has happened in the last three days though is that Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey have bitten Dacre's bait and are now being wheeled in with thousands standing and cheering from the river banks.
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
SMukesh
If you really want information here it is from the Spiked article linked by Dr. Sox:
Still, the Daily Mail has been feasting on the NCCL archives as if they were full of material from last week: ‘Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”; the NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to 10 – if the child consented and “understood the nature of the act”; it called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a “Lolita’s charter”; the NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved”; it filed a submission to parliament claiming that childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage; Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws; NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.’
I somewhat regret posting that paragraph out of context as the rest of the article is far wiser. But these are the 'facts' as the author sees them.
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
This is the info provided on the first day of this story.Nothing new has really been said in the last 3 days.Now that Harman and Dromey have offered a rebuttal,the Mail should publish evidence to show they are false if they are indeed false!
'NCCL’s official response, signed by Miss Harman and submitted in April 1978, claimed that the new law could lead to “damaging and absurd prosecutions” and “increase censorship”. She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
Rod, what you did miss out from the five year old article was:
"She has always opposed child pornography and has never supported PIE and to suggest that she did is untrue and misleading.
“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”
The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.”
I am not saying that the quote I have taken from the vey same article has more or less truth in it as the one you did, but extracting what a tabloid would call the juicy bits, does seem to cloud the argument a little...no?
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Grow up FFS.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Nigel, yet again you let your bias take over your argument. Show me where I said the accusations are not serious and should be dismissed out of hand. Please quote me. What I said was no matter what any Non-Tory politician says in an interview is always "a bad interview/very bad interview or poor interview". Sometimes you get a less bias commentary on politician interviews on ConHome than you do with posters here.
Any quote by me dismissing the accusations or saying they are not serious would do by the way.
Square Root has summed you up much better than I can.
What has happened in the last three days though is that Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey have bitten Dacre's bait and are now being wheeled in with thousands standing and cheering from the river banks.
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
SMukesh
If you really want information here it is from the Spiked article linked by Dr. Sox:
Still, the Daily Mail has been feasting on the NCCL archives as if they were full of material from last week: ‘Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”; the NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to 10 – if the child consented and “understood the nature of the act”; it called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a “Lolita’s charter”; the NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved”; it filed a submission to parliament claiming that childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage; Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws; NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.’
I somewhat regret posting that paragraph out of context as the rest of the article is far wiser. But these are the 'facts' as the author sees them.
Will be interested in watching the Hattie interview on i-player.I notice the Mail`s fourth consecutive headline with no extra information to give.
This is the info provided on the first day of this story.Nothing new has really been said in the last 3 days.Now that Harman and Dromey have offered a rebuttal,the Mail should publish evidence to show they are false if they are indeed false!
Ms Harman's line in the Newsnight interview seems to be that there were all sorts of odd, or worse, people and organisations who were members of or affiliated to the NCCL, and that none of them were expelled.
It seems an odd line to take, and one at risk from some enterprising journalist digging up a counter-example.
When I was 8 or 9, David Joy, one of the leaders of PIE, lived in my village. I went to school with his son, and his wife was a teacher at our school. When the scandal around him broke, his family disappeared, but he stayed in the family council house. I didn't really understand all the fuss, and my mum made me use a different route to and from school, rather than go passed his house, which was our normal route. He became a bit of a local bogey man, and I remember that he never had an unbroken pane of glass in his house. He still makes the local paper occasionally, when he's not in prison.
It's pretty sickening that lefties on here can't call out their own side, even with something as life-destroying as child abuse. For some reason they have a real psychological flaw acknowledging this as a major issue that needs tackling.
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
Double Bubble! It wouldn't matter what she or any non-Tory says. The PB Hodges always say "poor interview/bad interview/very bad interview" to every single one. Will watch it later when I can be arsed.
Well if you do manage to watch it, at least you'll know what you're talking about.
The Last Boy Scout Rubbish story. If the Tories are largest party in another hung parliament (very possible winning back enough UKIP defectors from their 2010 vote but not winning over enough new UKIP voters), then it will be another Tory-LD Coalition. The markets will not allow a Tory minority government which could be voted down at any time, or a pathetically weak PM Miliband who does not even lead the largest party in the House of Commons when the public finances are not yet in surplus and the economy not yet fully recovered. In any case Clegg will go with the largest party in a hung parliament. Move along Mr Brogan, nothing to see here!
Just read the article on the Telegraph about Cameron ruling out a coalition after 2015 and what do I find on here but everyone talking about Harman. From what I can tell, NCCL allowed anyone to affiliate and took their money. No evidence I've seen yet that she actually had any deallings with them herself or that they influenced NCCL policy. What do people want an apology from her for? This hardly (yet) seems comparable to say the Islington care homes scandal.
But what about Cameron? It looks like a curious gambit.
Have to admit I also thought old Hattie's interview was a bit of a carcrash. All she had to do was say she found it appalling that the organisation was ever allied to that paedophile group, and that she had nothing to do with any of it, and that would've been the end of that, but her refusal to say she thought it was inappropriate for them to even have been an ally in the first place did look odd. Politicians can sometimes be their own worst enemies at times like this.
It's pretty sickening that lefties on here can't call out their own side, even with something as life-destroying as child abuse. For some reason they have a real psychological flaw acknowledging this as a major issue that needs tackling.
I sometimes think the "left wing" can be more usefully thought of as a kind of religion (I speak as an apostate) and therefore many things are excused because "The Lord's work" will be imperilled.
I am not a Labour supporter, but I refuse to comment on the Harman story, a total load of rubbish, all she did was represent a group as a solicitor whose views much of the country will find distasteful, well I thought that was what lawyers did every day?
'NCCL didn't know they were being infiltrated by PIE' - BOLLOCKS
"Take, for example, the first mention of the Paedophile Information Exchange in NCCL literature — in Patricia Hewitt’s annual report to her members for 1975, published in April 1976.
There, she describes PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children’.
Hewitt then complains that PIE had recently been the subject of a ‘hysterical and highly inaccurate’ article in the Sunday People newspaper headlined ‘the vilest men in Britain’, which was ‘designed to foster misunderstanding and hatred’.
In the summer of 1976, the NCCL held its annual general meeting in London.
One motion, filed by Keith Hose — a self-confessed paedophile and co-founder of PIE — and Nettie Pollard, a lesbian activist who worked at the NCCL, ‘notes with disapproval the continued harassment’ of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which is ‘working for the rights of adults who are sexually interested in children’.
A year later, the NCCL’s management compiled a response to any journalists who might start asking awkward questions about its PIE affiliation. It revealed that the NCCL had quietly adopted another item of PIE propaganda as policy: that prosecution of paedophiles can ‘harm’ the children they abuse. ‘We support any organisation that seeks to campaign for anything it wants within the law,’ read the statement. ‘We have had plenty of contact with PIE, but the NCCL has no policy on their aims — other than the evidence that children are harmed if , after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, Press and the courts.’"
Well, having seen the Harman interview, I think I can safely say the usual UKIP member/councillor is a weirdo guilt-by-association story has been obliterated by comparison to this little affair.
Perhaps why Newnight tore into her is they have had their own troubles with tolerance of paedophilia and were only too eager to atone.
Liked the Harman line we-accepted-their-money-but-it-had-no-effect-on-policy. Who the hell advised her to use that decrepit old saw?
I am not a Labour supporter, but I refuse to comment on the Harman story, a total load of rubbish, all she did was represent a group as a solicitor whose views much of the country will find distasteful, well I thought that was what lawyers did every day?
Ethically, lawyers cannot argue for anyone (except in mitigation) who admits their guilt, as PIE quite readily did.
Just watched the Harman interview - thought the line she took was quite baffling. Surely the easiest thing to say would have been "looking back we were an idealistic organisation and we were perhaps a bit naive. We should have vetted our affiliates much more closely". Job done.
The problem if this story rumbles on is that often in the eyes of a cynical public
Politician denies X = Politican did X and is trying to cover it up
Ninoinoz As far as I can see it was a campaigning group to legalise paedophilia, clearly distasteful to most, but not against the law. What is against the law is to engage in paedophilic acts and as far as I can see this story is not about Harman defending a paedophile who had admitted his guilt
I don't think Harman is a great one for humility rather like most politicians. However what would she be apologising for. The trouble is if she even expresses regret there'll be those who'll try and blame her or the NCCL for child abuse. I've not seen anything yet that suggests that PIE's affiliation to the NCCL was anything but incidental.
SeanT Would agree on that, the law is the law. But someone who was campaigning to legalise homosexuality in the forties would also not have been acting illegally provided they did not commit a homosexual act
One of the questions regards the whole episode, is why is the right wing press bringing it out now? The information regards this episdoe has been known for quite a while. Rods link further down from The Telegraph is five years old and there is nothing new in what The Mail is printing compared to that article. How come the story re-appears now? The cynic in me would say for political reasons. I look at the more and more personal attacks on the leadership in the Labour Party by the right wing press and maybe one of the reasons to consider is the fact the polls are not going the direction certain papers would like it. Or maybe......they have just stumbled across it again.
Comments on the new thread not working. I got a red thingy which said "DiscussionID is required,", whatever that means.
Just in case, what I wrote is this:
If there is a hung parliament, and if there is a minority government, then there will be ad-hoc day-to-day negotiations and deals with various different parties to get legislation through and to get business done, just as there was 1976 to 1979. The Lib Dems - even if they are refused the chance of participating in a coalition with either Conservatives or Labour - will know that they will need to behave responsibly and not just vote against everything.
After all, there will be a 5-year parliament anyway, so they might as well learn to be co-operative regardless of which side of the House they sit on.
Comments
If the claimant is subsequently found to have concealed or disposed of property "deprivation of assets", the normal course is a civil recovery under the explicit provisions of either CRAG (1992) or HASSASSA (1983), or in extreme cases, under the Insolvency Act (1986).
I have never heard of the Police becoming involved, although I have not read the details of Bone's case...
Put down those posts and go off to watch the interview.
You will quickly conclude Harman interviewed very badly.
What yesterday was a story which no media would touch outside of the Mail group has today become a story covered on all tv news channels and in all mainstream papers.
And it is not as if the PB Tories really cared about the story. It was merely an inconsequential case of the Mail baiting the Labour party. If the story develops legs Harriet only has herself to blame!
The bait was laid and the fish was landed!
Whoever advised Harman to go on Newsnight called it wrong, she was very weak and seemed shifty, if she had nothing to worry about I would have thought she would be more convincing.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/labours-paedo-problems-no-reason-to-gloat/14700#.UwvNseN_udQ
But misrepresentation by a professional third party could fall under the Fraud Act.
Tribal politics is pathetic, childish and depressing. This May amount to nothing but as it stands the accusations are very serious, and should not be dismissed out of hand because it is Labour MP's implicated.
Jesus you are pathetic.
Every time you repeat yourself, shall I say GOAAAAAAAAL too???, its a game we all can play
Any quote by me dismissing the accusations or saying they are not serious would do by the way.
Michael Gove: suspend air passenger duty during school summer holidays
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/feb/24/michael-gove-air-passenger-duty-school-holidays
Luckily, as far as I can tell it turns out to be, as so often, a complete fabrication by the Guardian. Thank heavens for that. Gove hasn't gone Miliband-style-barmy after all.
When making allegations on Harman et al on PIE, any comments like that need to come with a link from a reputable UK based source.
For the avoidance of doubt order-order.com doesn't fall into that category.
If you really want information here it is from the Spiked article linked by Dr. Sox:
Still, the Daily Mail has been feasting on the NCCL archives as if they were full of material from last week: ‘Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”; the NCCL lobbied parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to 10 – if the child consented and “understood the nature of the act”; it called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a “Lolita’s charter”; the NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved”; it filed a submission to parliament claiming that childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage; Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws; NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.’
I somewhat regret posting that paragraph out of context as the rest of the article is far wiser. But these are the 'facts' as the author sees them.
She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
Uh oh oh.
Fair enough.
What has happened in the last three days though is that Harriet Harman and Jack Dromey have bitten Dacre's bait and are now being wheeled in with thousands standing and cheering from the river banks.
Silly Harman! Silly Dromey!
She suggested that a pornographic photo or film of a child should not be considered indecent unless it could be shown that the subject had suffered, and that prosecutors would have to prove harm rather than defendants having to justify themselves.'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4949555/Harriet-Harman-under-attack-over-bid-to-water-down-child-pornography-law.html
Rod, what you did miss out from the five year old article was:
"She has always opposed child pornography and has never supported PIE and to suggest that she did is untrue and misleading.
“NCCL’s approach to the protection of children’s bill was to argue for clear definitions in the bill to make sure the law was precise so that it was about child protection and not about censorship.”
The spokesman added: “PIE had been excluded from the NCCL before she became legal officer.”
I am not saying that the quote I have taken from the vey same article has more or less truth in it as the one you did, but extracting what a tabloid would call the juicy bits, does seem to cloud the argument a little...no?
Guido Fawkes @GuidoFawkes 10m
Watch @bbclaurak interview with Harriet Harman in full: she refuses to say it was a mistake to allow PIE affiliation http://order-order.com/2014/02/24/watch-harman-refuses-to-say-affiliating-with-pie-was-a-mistake/ …
I didn't know of the link and would have opposed it. Presumably she cant.
or
I did know of the link and I opposed it. Presumably she cant.
or
Yes I did know and yes I should have spoken up. Regretted not doing so.
Tricky........
It seems an odd line to take, and one at risk from some enterprising journalist digging up a counter-example.
When the scandal around him broke, his family disappeared, but he stayed in the family council house. I didn't really understand all the fuss, and my mum made me use a different route to and from school, rather than go passed his house, which was our normal route. He became a bit of a local bogey man, and I remember that he never had an unbroken pane of glass in his house. He still makes the local paper occasionally, when he's not in prison.
But what about Cameron? It looks like a curious gambit.
cf non investigation of abusive priests
I am not a Labour supporter, but I refuse to comment on the Harman story, a total load of rubbish, all she did was represent a group as a solicitor whose views much of the country will find distasteful, well I thought that was what lawyers did every day?
"Take, for example, the first mention of the Paedophile Information Exchange in NCCL literature — in Patricia Hewitt’s annual report to her members for 1975, published in April 1976.
There, she describes PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults sexually attracted to children’.
Hewitt then complains that PIE had recently been the subject of a ‘hysterical and highly inaccurate’ article in the Sunday People newspaper headlined ‘the vilest men in Britain’, which was ‘designed to foster misunderstanding and hatred’.
In the summer of 1976, the NCCL held its annual general meeting in London.
One motion, filed by Keith Hose — a self-confessed paedophile and co-founder of PIE — and Nettie Pollard, a lesbian activist who worked at the NCCL, ‘notes with disapproval the continued harassment’ of the Paedophile Information Exchange, which is ‘working for the rights of adults who are sexually interested in children’.
A year later, the NCCL’s management compiled a response to any journalists who might start asking awkward questions about its PIE affiliation.
It revealed that the NCCL had quietly adopted another item of PIE propaganda as policy: that prosecution of paedophiles can ‘harm’ the children they abuse.
‘We support any organisation that seeks to campaign for anything it wants within the law,’ read the statement.
‘We have had plenty of contact with PIE, but the NCCL has no policy on their aims — other than the evidence that children are harmed if , after a mutual relationship with an adult, they are exposed to the attentions of the police, Press and the courts.’"
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562555/Labours-child-sex-apologists-How-three-partys-senior-figures-campaigned-vile-paedophile-group-probed-police-abusing-children-industrial-scale.html#ixzz2uHzt2DJv
Perhaps why Newnight tore into her is they have had their own troubles with tolerance of paedophilia and were only too eager to atone.
Liked the Harman line we-accepted-their-money-but-it-had-no-effect-on-policy. Who the hell advised her to use that decrepit old saw?
The problem if this story rumbles on is that often in the eyes of a cynical public
Politician denies X = Politican did X and is trying to cover it up
Does it have any priests or celebs of a certain age in it ?
Just in case, what I wrote is this:
If there is a hung parliament, and if there is a minority government, then there will be ad-hoc day-to-day negotiations and deals with various different parties to get legislation through and to get business done, just as there was 1976 to 1979. The Lib Dems - even if they are refused the chance of participating in a coalition with either Conservatives or Labour - will know that they will need to behave responsibly and not just vote against everything.
After all, there will be a 5-year parliament anyway, so they might as well learn to be co-operative regardless of which side of the House they sit on.