Wednesday, 26 February 2014

Sickening hypocrisy of the Guardian

The Guardian's hypocrisy over Harman and 'Big Black Cocks' Dromey's place as part of a team of fewer than a dozen running NCCL at a time when it was affiliated with a paedo 'rights' organisation is quite sickening. Zoe Williams writes this morning:
It was a turbulent era, when the taboos were not the same. The rights of children and adults, charges and guardians, were pitted against one another, and the whole thing hinged on defining that exact moment of transition, from minor to major. Inevitably, there were views in this debate that we now see as wrong, deluded and unpleasant. Most people saw them that way at the time. PIE were never more than a bizarre blip on the civil liberties landscape. Likewise, positions taken in debates today will, in the future, seem sinister and indefensible.
That's right, Zoe; so now will we see the Guardian advancing the 'Harman defence' on behalf of Dave Lee Travis, William Roache, Rolf Harris et al? No? Thought not.  


DeeDee99 said...

Just imaging the BBC's and MSM reaction if these people were now UKIP members!

It would have been top news story everywhere for the past week.

But it 3 of their own ..... so there's nothing to see here, move along ... move along.

G. Tingey said...

Bollocks Radders
You should be ashamed
Harman is a vile cow whose politics I have no time for, but ...

The Daily Nazi are running a disingenuous hate campaign based on false guilt-by-association.
NOT good enough.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

To be totally and unreasonably fair, one must point out that Harman is accused only of being a main player in an organisation that allowed itself to be associated with another organisation that had dodgy views.

Whereas the various old men from the bbc are actually accused of physically committing a crime.

Not quite the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Here's the twitter exchange yesterday (H/T Guido) between Mail associate editor Andrew Pierce and Sally Bercow.


'Harman and Dromey finally break their silence on the mail's revelations about paedophile group. will the BBC now report it?'


' are truly obnoxious human being. And a *cough* "journalist" who survives by smears & insults, rather than stories.'


..'i vaguely remember when you tried to pretend uou were a serious commentator now youre just a relic of trash TV shows.'


'Sick-up your venom. U banned from Speaker's House events coz you bigoted, offensive arse & trading off that fact. Blocked now'

To understand how far standards have fallen in this country, this woman is the wife of the Speaker of the House of Commons.


Ed P said...

Yeah, but if you were labelled as a cow stuck to a berk, you'd probably be a twitter-twat like her.

DtP said...

@G.Tingey. The clue's in the name sweetie - when dealing with affiliated applications for some org with paedo in the title, it's usually common place to reject straight out of hand. Considering that it must have been through some committee to obtain affiliated status it seems neither guilt by association nor a witch hunt but at the very best an oversight for which a full statement of apology and contrition would be a reasonable request - d'ya think?

It's fine being partisan, but don't ignore evidence lest people think your analysis is all balderdash.

Anonymous said...

I believe there are also legal documents with her name on discussing naked child photographs and even a campaign to reduce the age of consent to 10. How would you react if these had been found amongst Mr Savilles belongings?

You can't even take photgraphs of your child playing junior soccer or in the school play, but she was saying naked pictures were OK unless harm was proven, bloody hypocrite.

Ian Hills said...

It is vital to whip up witch-hunt paranoia about white paedophilia. Otherwise we might start paying more attention to endemic Pakistani grooming - and that would be racist.

James Higham said...

Which is why I never read it.

G. Tingey said...

Associated with ... an organisation ... that was associated with ..
WHAT PART OF "Guilt by association" don't you understand?

And that "gba" is not admissible in any court of law, nor in any reasonable discussion.
In fact, because we don't like Harman, we should be especially careful, lest we hand her a stick to beat us with.

cuffleyburgers said...

@ G Tingey - and she'd probably enjoy that.

Sebastian Weetabix said...

Tingey -it isn't a court of law and they aren't charged with anything.

The association of NCCL & PIE just shows the warped world view and flawed judgement of the loony left. No one is suggesting that Harman et al are paedos, or even sympathetic to their cause, simply that they are so painfully stupid and right-on they didn't have the spine to tell the pervs to fuck off. I can't wait for Margaret Hodge's stupid antics in Hackney council to reach a wider audience, either. That council actively facilitated paedophilia by allowing them to run the children's homes. Being charitable, let's say they were naive.

Sometimes even the Daily Heil is right. Your hatred of it seems to blind you to the facts at times.

Budgie said...

I think Harman's, Dromey's and Hewitt's Marxist hatred of our society was so extreme and virulent that their judgement became sufficiently warped for them to have PIE associated, for seven years, with the organisation (NCCL) that they were running.

This was not a mere oversight - it was too long a time. Any reasonable person would simply have walked out of the NCCL, and refused to be associated.