Daily Mail keeps on at asking top Labour officials awkward questions over peado links

[-:Undertaker:-]

Please link me Harman's campaign to legalise child abuse.

Hang on, did I say Harman? I was referring to the Liberty Group and it's links with PIE. The fact that you are defending her though when she won't answer questions properly when it comes to her links with a group with the group she was very much involved in is pretty strange..... the fact you are trying to equate PIE with the Daily Mail just goes to show how low opponents of the DM will sink in a attempt to deflect attention from the real issue which is that of Labour, NCCL and PIE. Stop attempting to equate a some underage girls in swim costumes with some dodgy groups from the 1970s and 1980s.

In any case, this bit is pretty damning enough anyway -

There's also the question of why 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.

Labour politicians have always disgusted me when they seem to be more interested in the rights of criminals than those of their victims. We saw it under the last government with lax sentences being handed out, prisons going soft and the Human Rights Act. So this is no surprise.

[Kardan]

Hang on, did I say Harman? I was referring to the Liberty Group and it's links with PIE. The fact that you are defending her though when she won't answer questions properly when it comes to her links with a group with the group she was very much involved in is pretty strange..... the fact you are trying to equate PIE with the Daily Mail just goes to show how low opponents of the DM will sink in a attempt to deflect attention from the real issue which is that of Labour, NCCL and PIE. Stop attempting to equate a some underage girls in swim costumes with some dodgy groups from the 1970s and 1980s.

In any case, this bit is pretty damning enough anyway -



Labour politicians have always disgusted me when they seem to be more interested in the rights of criminals than those of their victims. We saw it under the last government with lax sentences being handed out, prisons going soft and the Human Rights Act. So this is no surprise.

Well, from my point of view, we don't know the extent of what happened with this group she worked for. The Daily Mail is happy to pull readers into an article with a 12 year old in her first bikini photoshoot whereas at the moment all we know is that Harman worked for a group that was 'affiliated' with a pro-paedophilia group. Really, it all depends on the nature of the affiliation.

Although, if the petitioning for reduced sentences for convicted paedophiles is true, then that really isn't helping her case at all, and it will be interesting to hear her comment on that.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well, from my point of view, we don't know the extent of what happened with this group she worked for. The Daily Mail is happy to pull readers into an article with a 12 year old in her first bikini photoshoot whereas at the moment all we know is that Harman worked for a group that was 'affiliated' with a pro-paedophilia group. Really, it all depends on the nature of the affiliation.

And you are still doing it. If you are drawn into articles with 12 year old girls in bikinis splashed across them, then that says more about you and other readers than it does about me. I merely see them as harmless pictures just as I would with pictures of my sister playing on the beach or a picture of me and my brothers in the bath when younger.

Whether you like the Daily Mail or what it stands for is not on the agenda. Nor are some irrelevent pictures on it's article. The issue is, as others have said, to what extent was Harman and co's involvement in these groups and to what extent did they know about PIE? That's the issue. To bring the Daily Mail into it is to totally miss the point just as Harman is by bringing up the same thing. Even those supportive of her on Twitter are questioning the validity in making a comparison between the two as there is no comparison.

Do you now withdraw your claim *"I just think that the Daily Mail shouldn't be so quick to jump on it when I say they are in a worse position than Harman"* that innocent pictures of young girls on holiday in bikinis in a paper are the same as/worse than the NCCL/PIE or potential involvement by Harman with these groups?

Although, if the petitioning for reduced sentences for convicted paedophiles is true, then that really isn't helping her case at all, and it will be interesting to hear her comment on that.

Indeed.

I am not suggesting Harman or others are directly guilty of anything either. I simply think that those on the left who believe in softer sentences or even legalising paedophilia should be exposed in public for their views which are repulsive to the vast majority.

[Kardan]

And you are still doing it. If you are drawn into articles with 12 year old girls in bikinis splashed across them, then that says more about you and other readers than it does about me. I merely see them as harmless pictures just as I would with pictures of my sister playing on the beach or a picture of me and my brothers in the bath when younger.

Whether you like the Daily Mail or what it stands for is not on the agenda. Nor are some irrelevent pictures on it's article. The issue is, as others have said, to what extent was Harman and co's involvement in these groups and to what extent did they know about PIE? That's the issue. To bring the Daily Mail into it is to totally miss the point just as Harman is by bringing up the same thing. Even those supportive of her on Twitter are questioning the validity in making a comparison between the two as there is no comparison.

Do you now withdraw your claim *"I just think that the Daily Mail shouldn't be so quick to jump on it when I say they are in a worse position than Harman"* that innocent pictures of young girls on holiday in bikinis in a paper are the same as/worse than the NCCL/PIE or potential involvement by Harman with these groups?



Indeed.

But surely you can see a difference between pictures of children in a natural environment and letting a 12 year old pose in a bikini for a photoshoot?

And my claim depends on what 'affiliate' means really. From what I understand, anyone could become an affiliate and essentially it means there was financial backing rather than an influence of policies etc.

I think saying the Daily Mail are in a worse position was wrong, but certainly they are not scot free themselves.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I think saying the Daily Mail are in a worse position was wrong, but certainly they are not scot free themselves.

Then we agree.

- - - Updated - - -

Here's the interview if anybody is interested...



Not looking good for Harman. Refuses to say it was wrong for PIE to be linked to the NCCL.

[GommeInc]

There's still not been any indication that they had personal or direct links with them as far as I've seen, it's just an affiliate group that wasn't properly checked because the NCCL just wanted as many allies as possible at the time. It's a bit like saying a graphic artist working for Sulake is to blame for a black market trade that takes place between two members of Habbox

Not forgetting the money was pretty good too - didn't affiliates have to pay to become associated with NCCL? Also paedo rights is a bit of an over-exaggeration. Rights groups exist for everything in the criminal world. From murderers all the way down to thieves for petty theft. From what I gather the "Paedo Rights" group were not necessarily asking that paedophiles walk free, but were considered to have a range of underlying issues from being the victim of abuse and therefore lenient sentences should be given. Hardly surprising groups ask for and exist for this.