AIBU to think there would be more uproar If this was the Tory's

[trampstamp]

Have I missed something here why is no one bothered that labour pretty much lobbied for a group that would see that the age of consent is lowered to 4 years old ffs

If this was the Tory's there would be up roar and the fact red ed is silent on this is shocking

People really do dislike her and Margaret B. I think they just came across as so patronising. I don't think she's really a paedophile-facilitator, just a naive and bossy woman who has no idea how her actions appear to other people outside the Guardian readership.

Margaret H seems to have made some enemies at Islington by not allowing an investigation into paedophiles, but hasn't been involved in this week's mud-slinging. Interesting.

Do people not like her because she's a woman?

Ah, I get it Vivienne, your in depth, inside knowledge of HH on this issue is that 'she is simply dreadful'. I'm convinced.

Born with a silver spoon in her mouth? Well, now we're getting down to it. Her mother was a solicitor and her father was a doctor. Her family is well connected, yes, but not landed gentry. From a quick scan of her Wikipedia article, I'd say all the high achievers she's related to got there by hard work and ability, not because of inherited wealth or titles.

Yes, she chose to send her son to a grammar school miles away and not to a comp in her own constituency. Frankly, I don't blame her for that on a personal level (I live in the next door borough), but of course it was hypocritical. However, if that's the worst she's done, I'm at a loss to see why she inspires such bile.

I'm not keen on HH because of things like this:

and this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8289159.stm

Darn, non-active links. I'm not keen on HH because of things like this:

and this:

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8289159.stm

stereotype champagne socialist.
Oh do grow up. I vote Labour. I'm a Guardian reading granddaughter of Lords. I like Bollinger and good red wine. It doesn't prevent me from having a conscience.

Patronising and bossy, Abra, now which other female politician does that remind me of?

So only people with a conscience vote Labour. Hmm that leaves a lot of people without one. Kind of hard to grow up whilst being lectured to by Harman. Reminds me of being back at school in front of my old headmistress. She just isn't liked by a lot of people and that includes labour voters and potential labour voters. If you don't accept that then fine.

The point here, Vivienne is that you are not actually arguing the point, you are arguing Harman, whom you dislike, again, not for her policies, it would seem, but because she reminds you of your schooldays. Most odd.
As for having a conscience, it is beyond me, I must admit that people can vote for the bedroom tax and the welfare reforms as they currently stand.

Grauniad thing is particularly funny if you've spent any time going through old newspaper coffee, as the Graun were quite fond of lionizing and flattering just such fascists in their day themselves.

Ha, old newspaper "COPY". Stupid autowrong

I do judge them all for having PIE anywhere near the NCCL, actually, I just don't think that it was the heinous crime of peado promotion that the Telegraph and DM are suggesting.

Others did worse and should be the focus of the story-Pollard herself for example, still active in gay rights.

Dromey has said very firmly he was the person who kicked PIE out of the NCCL. Does anyone dispute that? If not, why is he in this story at all?

Headline: Thatcher give cash to paedophiles.

Or was financial assistance give to PIE by the Conservative Government?

Same thing, isn't it?

this is getting ridiculous. I worked with someone who ended up murdering someone (true). Am I now responsible for everyone I ever worked with because I am now quite senior?

There is absolutely nothing here. It smacks of the Christopher Jefferies thing where the press leapt with delight upon the fact that he had an odd hairstyle - he must be a murderer.

None of this reflects well on the NCCL who made a bad choice and then corrected it. But what it has to do with their then legal officer - in a junior role - other than that she went on to become significant - is beyond me.

It's a shame if people want to believe she campaigns for child abuse but frankly that is so utterly stupid that it's not worth arguing about. But good luck to those people when they try to take a picture of their child at the beach. Let's just hope they then get the treatment HH is getting now and maybe then they'll understand something about the judicial process and context. When they try to defend themselves hopefully someone will throw it back in their face with the accusation that they once went on a nice holiday and therefore are privileged, or chose a selective school for their kids so don't deserve to be treated as whole people but simply as symbols of an evil cabal.

But she didn't just 'work with' someone who ended up doing something bad - she was the Legal Officer for the NCCL. It wasn't just coincidental that she knew someone bad, she didn't sit at the next desk or something - she had a major legal role in running that organisation. I don't think you can just say it was just her bad luck, she was a bit more responsible for the actions of the NCCL than that. Also I certainly don't believe she campaigned in favour of child abuse but I do think that by giving such an organisation credibility and a platform probably did make it harder for children to recognise and report abuse.

I also think her lofty attitude hasn't done her any favours - why doesn't she just say outright that yes it was a massive mistake and she's sorry and now can we move on? I would respect that personally.

Also I don't think the fact she chose a selective school for her children makes her 'evil' it just enrages people when Labour politicians criticise selective education and adopt policies against it but then use it for their own children. Is it good enough for the electorate but not for their kids then? It is so hugely hypocritical that it is hard to take what they say seriously.

labour25.com

Headline: Thatcher give cash to paedophiles.

Headline: Thatcher regularly entertained paedophile rapist at Checkers

Surely that means everyone who worked for the Conservative in the 80s is as guilty as Harriet Harman?

Seeing as this thread is veering into truth and reconciliation I feel I should confess to a past on The Sun, the News of the World and the Daily Mail amongst others.

Should I apologise for Hillsborough and phone-hacking and the daily relentless distortion of facts on asylum seekers, benefit claimants, unions, cancer and Ed Miliband's dead dad?

Should I have gone further and resigned? Maybe I should set light to myself. I've been painting the radiators so I've got some white spirit handy.

Or should we all calm down a little bit and accept that people work for organisations for lots of different reasons.

Most of us do it to pay the mortgage, some of us to further our careers and yet others to do both those things and also to advance the cause of something quaint like, er civil fucking liberties.

And while they were at it, they didn't appear to do anything like campaigning to lower the age of consent to 10. Or under 16.

And if you believe Harman did then show me.

If the Mail had found that they'd have splashed on it long ago. And quite rightly.

However, they know and I know how to present things to make people look guilty. It's frighteningly easy because most people don't read things forensically - and I'm including myself too, just in case anyone is going to accuse me of snobbery.

It's very hard to keep an open mind. But some of us try. I wish more people did.

But, speaking as a journalist, we also know that if readers already softened up for a kicking it'll be easier. I've already read: 'champagne socialist' 'my headmistress' 'silver spoon' and a little earlier I asked when the first mention of Harriet Harperson would come.

I don't know whether there is a heaven, but if there is, someone who worked 40 years ago for the National Council of Civil Liberties might have an easier time with St Peter at the Pearly Gates than Paul Dacre.

But that's just my opinion.

It's smearing someone. Something the Daily Mail is very good at - when it targets groups or a person. Put in words like Champagne socialist etc, add some truths and then some insinuations and you get propoganda and smearing.

It's what the Nazis were very good at.

Maybe that's something the Daily Mail learnt from their Nazi friends in the past.

[Godwin's law again]

Why not go full Godwin:

Rather, it depends on a remarkably stupid thick-headedness. The English follow the principle that when one lies, one should lie big, and stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous.

The best lies need an element of truth to them.
That's why Andrew Mitchell was so believable.

Great posts from Quangle and limitedperiod.

What I'd love to know is this: does anyone genuinely, seriously think that Harman has ever supported the rights of adults to have sex with children? Really?

If we're in the business of guilt by association, then thousands of adults (including senior establishment figures) must be implicated by their association with Savile who, it now appears, was known at the time to have a preference for sex with little boys and girls.