Labour's Harman and Dromey vs the DM
 

She says its a Smear


But last night on Newsnight she would not say sorry

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...06_634x450.jpg
[The BBC was accused yesterday of keeping
the growing paedophilia scandal from
the airwaves in order to protect the Labour Party]

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2uK52131w


http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...65_634x931.jpg
Allegations: Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, 63, and her 65-year-old husband Jack Dromey
Harmans Reply
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz2uK5nNyOW

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/...34_634x728.jpg

The Daily Mail are saying Harriet Harmon and her husband were supportive of the Paedophile Information exchange (P.I.E) because they were involved with the National Council for Civil Liberties back in the 70's.

So they were guilty by association or they were guilty of not doing more to disassociate the NCCL from the PIE

But they maintain the link between the two organisations was tenuous and superficial without any real substance. they maintain at no time did they ever offer any form of support for this group.

So should they now be smeared by the Daily Mail or is this just another politically motivated ploy to discredit Labour. Scoring political points by treading all over peoples reputations.

Why am I not surprised by this...typical story from a fascist, right wing, tory rag....!!!

Yes and thats how they can say sorry.


DM is is not Fascist
they are a Dog with bone.

They most certainly are arista, fascist tory mouthpeice.
I suggest anyone who is aware of this political bias complain to the press complaints commission.

http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/form.html

They are what they are
but Not Fascist.


They were a Blair Mouthpiece in his New Labour

No.......wasn't that the Sun ??

Yes and he wrote for the Daily Mail
and used them to get his New Labour politics
free pr

The Mirror and the Guardian are seen as left leaning yet only report as is... the mail and the sun do not, they smear and dig and hack.
It's influence that can't have a price put on it, brainwashing with your morning cuppa.

The Guardian is a Great Paper
but bankrupt


Link for Kizzy in this story
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/...gn-allegations

Well it's not politically funded is it? I've read the article thanks.

Despite which paper broke this story, and with acceptance that the Daily Mail is a rag, Harman was involved with the organisation in question; an organisation that supported peodophiles and the exploitation of children. I'm not surprised Harman wants to distance herself from it.

Despite the fact that she's a Labour MP, I always quite admired Harriet Harman. She was (I think) the first single (as in unmarried) mother to become an MP. This issue is disturbing though andnd I get the feeling she's going to try to justify her involvement, which would be a bad mistake.

It all looks a bit muddy for me.:conf:

Yes all she had to do was say Sorry
last night on Newsnight.

Harriet Harmon was not involved with an organisation that supported paedophiles and the exploitation of children....it is very unfair to say this !!!

The National Council for Civil Liberties (now Liberty) was back in the seventies operating as an umbrella company for many groups and organisations at that time.

Over 1,000 of these groups applied for membership and joined without the levels of vetting now applied to most organisations when joining.

The Paedophile information Exchange or P.I.E as it was known were basically a Paedophile group masquerading as a legitimate organisation involved in trying to lower the various age of sexual consents for straight and gay people.

The N.C.C.L never approved or supported this group (in public or at their AGM) and once their true aims were realised they were thrown out of the N.C.C.L

The N.C.C.L never knowingly supported this group and Mrs Harmon certainly did not either.

This is a Political smear campaign by the Mail to try and discredit her like they did earlier with Ed Milliband with the story about his father.


I wish people could look a little deeper into these stories before repeating such blatant untruths.

I think she should have immediately apologised and said yes we should have got rid of that association but obviously it did not mean that I in any way condoned what they stood for.

That said just what is the DM saying? that she is a paedo, or she is not fit to do her job now?

bunch of fwits

They want her to say Sorry

I think the DM is just trying to make a point that she made an error in judgement being connected (however loosely) with a Paedophile organisation.

But tbh she was at fault only inasmuch as she did not spend huge amounts of time investigating the true aims and members of over 1,000 organisations just in case one or two had some dark secrets to hide.

Personally I think she has nothing to apologise for as she has done nothing wrong.

With hindsight bearing in mind her political aspirations at that time, perhaps she should have thought twice about getting involved with an organisation which was in fact an umbrella organisation for many other groups, as she must have known then that proper vetting of all of these groups was logistically impossible bearing in mind that membership was probably obtained through the post with a yearly subscription.

She probably wanted to be seen as being involved with Civil liberties without looking at the finer details of the structure of the organisation she was joining.

All things considered, to make this rather tenuous connection now really is just trying to score political points ...I mean what other purpose could this information serve ?

Are they trying to say that Mrs Harmon is a Paedophile or likes little boys ??

No of course not, so why chase a story like this ? Exactly !! Tory point scoring pure and simple

Sorry for what....
What about the pedophile ring within government that MP Tom Watson asked to be investigated?
What about the time Jimmy Saville spent at chequers as a guest of Margret Thatcher?

I notice an apology has been forthcoming. A little late.

It is incomprehensible to me how a civil liberties organisation can affiliate themselves to a group supporting paedophiles.

'Was there a paedophile ring in No 10? MP Tom Watson demands probe'

'A powerful paedophile network may have operated in Britain protected by its connections to Parliament and Downing Street, a senior Labour politician suggested yesterday.
Speaking from the back benches of the House of Commons, Tom Watson, the deputy chairman of the Labour Party, called on the Metropolitan Police to reopen a closed criminal inquiry into paedophilia.'

'They are thought to involve the activities of the Paedophile Information Exchange, a pro-paedophile group in existence between 1974 and 1984, which believed there should be no age of consent.

Responding to the remarks, David Cameron said the MP had raised “a very difficult and complex case”, adding he was unclear which former Prime Minister Mr Watson was referring to.

Criticising the BBC’s record on Savile – who was never caught and died last year aged 84, the Prime Minister said: "These allegations do leave many institutions - perhaps particularly the BBC - with serious questions to answer - I think above all the question, 'How did he get away with this for so long?'

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...e-8224702.html

All that's terrible Kizzy; shameful, and investigations must go ahead and people should be prosecuted or cleared otherwise it makes a mockery of our Parliament and our laws. But it doesn't let Harman off the hook.

Well to me it seems hypocritical to ask one MP to apologise for merely being associated with an organisation that had a tenuous link to PIE almost 40yrs ago, and yet sat in the house of lords are those who had slightly stronger connections it seems?...

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...dophile-group/

Sounds to me like she has a bit more to answer for than a minor technical oversight

I see the torygraph are piling on the pressure too.

I hardly call her link tenuous; her involvement with the organisation is a matter of record. And once some evidence regarding the others comes to light - and I wouldn't be at all surprised if it did - then those others must be held to account. But you can't ask people to apologise on the strength of someone's allegations.