***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
Continued political chat.
Last edited by: VxFan on Tue 25 Feb 14 at 01:48
|
>>>>"Isn't being in favour of common sense just as much motherhood and apple pie as all the other guff?"
Haywain:
>>An interesting comment - as I suspected, folks have lost sight of the concept of 'common sense' amongst the forest of political claptrap.
Tricky stuff these slogans and mission statements. I suppose "common sense" could stand as a rejection of the usual banalities.
Google's is "don't be evil", which seems as good as anything.
Tesco built its resurgence in the Leahy reign under the internal mantra "better, simpler, cheaper". Anybody who has worked for Tesco in the centre will know that you couldn't get any project signed off unless you could tick those three boxes. It had to make the customer experience better, not worse, it must reduce rather than increase complexity, and it must improve efficiency overall. Some would call that common sense.
|
|
Nigel is on the "Daily Politics" from 12 noon, today.
|
I'm not old enough to watch daytime TV so I get it later on the iplayer
:}
|
Daily politics…
Saw it on i-player - thanks for the heads-up.
I thought Nigel demonstrated very gentlemanly qualities by not mauling James Cracknell in his role as prospective Tory MEP.
|
Didn't see it (yet) but there's an unfavourable write up in Metro today. Says Neil floored Farage over their manifesto, with Farage admitting he didn't know what was in it.
Is that right?
|
|
how can he, he hasn't decided what it is yet.
|
>> Didn't see it (yet) but there's an unfavourable write up in Metro today.
Don't see it either but can see this: tinyurl.com/p65v2w7
"Get ‘It’s Raining Men’ to No.1: Facebook campaign launched after Ukip councillor blames floods on gay marriage"
:)
|
>> Didn't see it (yet) but there's an unfavourable write up in Metro today. Says Neil
>> floored Farage over their manifesto, with Farage admitting he didn't know what was in it.
>>
>> Is that right?
They were discussing the 2010 Manifesto.
www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jan/23/nigel-farage-ukip-2010-election-manifesto
Even allowing for selective editing by the Gruaniad some of the policies look like Monster Raving Loony territory.
|
|
see video in my link above
|
>>Even allowing for selective editing by the Gruaniad some of the policies look like Monster Raving Loony territory. <<
The guy that wrote that manifesto is now a Tory. Alot of Tories dont know that and they soon hush up about that manifesto when you point it out.
At the end of the day half the party members were not even around in 2010 so what was done in the past is irrelevant to them. Many, like me, joined the party on the basis that they were going to stop fooling about and do something more productive. From what I see on the inside that is the case but I cant speak for the past.
|
>> >>>>"Isn't being in favour of common sense just as much motherhood and apple pie as
>> all the other guff?"
>>
>> Tesco built its resurgence in the Leahy reign under the internal mantra "better, simpler, cheaper".
>> Anybody who has worked for Tesco in the centre will know that you couldn't get
>> any project signed off unless you could tick those three boxes. It had to make
>> the customer experience better, not worse, it must reduce rather than increase complexity, and it
>> must improve efficiency overall. Some would call that common sense.
>>
>>
>>
Well somehow it got corrupted. I find shopping at Tesco an expensive thankless job with miserable staff and high prices. A place to avoid at all costs.
If that is "common sense", I'll take madness anyday.
|
"If that is "common sense", I'll take madness anyway."
As a general rule, it isn't common sense to take actions that drive your customers away, is it? Other supermarkets are available.
|
>> Well somehow it got corrupted. I find shopping at Tesco an expensive thankless job with
>> miserable staff and high prices. A place to avoid at all costs.
>>
>> If that is "common sense", I'll take madness anyday.
I agree it has stumbled. The bit they forgot was to look after the staff, in my opinion, and it's a common theme with former colleagues of mine who either came from there or went there. There was also complacency.
|
|
Tesco are doing a 'late-nineties Mercedes' at the moment.
|
|
Don't tell me that. I'll be down there trading the Mazda in.
|
Why I’d rather run M&S than Tesco
tinyurl.com/qcuntwk
|
|
Unfortunate tinyurl there.
|
>> Unfortunate tinyurl there.
>>
Takes a certain mindset to spot it :-)
|
I cant see it myself Roger, Patrick is a policy/strategy kinda guy, good in the media but not exceptional.
My hope is for one of the female MEP candidates to step up, we have several who are very strong, that or one of the younger guys on the MEP lists who have the energy to do the job.
|
>> that or one of the younger guys ... who have the energy to do the job.
Yeah, that'll help them stand apart from Clegg, Cameron and Milliband.
|
I belatedly watched the video. Seems to me that while Farage should have been more prepared for the subject to come up, he was hardly defeated by the subject.
Of course, a main party leader would have been because such a point would have gone on and on and on. But I thought Farage's "it ridiculous and should be replaced and of course I haven't read it" stood up quite well bearing in mind the environment where he lives.
The main leaders can get caught up in month long sagas about every intonation or piece of punctuation that they use. Farage purportedly eschews all that, which rather defeats any approach to make him look ridiculous by the standards of behaviour of the other leaders.
|
>>But I thought Farage's "it ridiculous and should be replaced and of course I haven't read it" stood up quite well bearing in mind the environment where he lives.<<
The 2010 manifesto was written by David Campbell Bannerman who defected to the Tories in 2011, it was entirely logical to disown a manifesto written by a member of an opposition party.
It was full of rubbish too though, one of the reasons I voted Tory in 2010!
|
>> it was entirely logical to disown a manifesto written by a member of an opposition party.
No, that's silly. It was written by a member of UKIP. And since his conversion was lauded on the way in, you cannot retrospectively dismiss him on the way out. That is the speak that the main parties espouse which you insist UKIP does not.
The manifesto was daft because of the circumstances in which it was written and the political nous of the group responsible for it, not because of some shallow and ridiculous need to deny involvement from "opposition" politicians.
Now if I was in the UK media, that's the kind of daft-ass comment I would trash UKIP for, not such things as a changing manifesto or discrimination in the work place.
|
>>It was written by a member of UKIP. And since his conversion was lauded on the way in, you cannot retrospectively dismiss him on the way out. That is the speak that the main parties espouse which you insist UKIP does not.<<
The party has changed direction since 2010, admitting that your earlier approach wasnt any good fits rather perfectly with straight talking.
DCB was the past, maybe half of current UKIP members were not members in 2010 so for them year zero was 2012/13, 2010 UKIP may aswell be another party.
I certainly dont feel any connection with UKIP of 2010, not one party official at my branch was even a member then, that is the scale of the change. When a party changes its membership so drastically it is a fair suggestion that the party of the past isnt very relevant.
|
So, if by 2012 it had changed to a party which felt no connection to, or allegiance to, policy, statements and commitments made by the party in 2012, why on earth should I trust anything you say now as being relevant in 2016?
Perhaps I should only vote for UKIP in any instance where the term in office will be <2 years to avoid such a risk?
I shall now sit back whilst you try to take your own earlier argument, this comment, professions of "straight talking" and being the way forward and try and rationalise it all into one coherent argument.
You see, previously UKIP only had to say the right thing in any given situation and so did very well within the media nd in people's perceptions. Now they not only have to say the right thing, they have to balance it with what they said last time - and that's a lot more tricky. That one point is the reason for the demise of most new political parties and it will be the death of UKIP.
UKIP should accept its role of keeping the other parties honest, and not aspire to leadership.
And may I suggest that your main thrust should not be to justify your own views, it should be to convince me to adopt them.
|
>>So, if by 2012 it had changed to a party which felt no connection to, or allegiance to, policy, statements and commitments made by the party in 2012, why on earth should I trust anything you say now as being relevant in 2016<<
The change the party underwent was a philosophy change, from acting as a pressure group to becoming a party, it is unlikely it will return to being a pressure group and it is unusual in politics for that to happen.
>>Now they not only have to say the right thing, they have to balance it with what they said last time - and that's a lot more tricky <<
You are right that consistancy is important but the details around the edges of policy will change over time as new ideas about how to drive the core values are put forward. As far as I am concerned the best way you can handle past policy is be honest about it - if you got it wrong, say so or if you got it right, put it in your next manifesto. People tend to prefer you to be upfront about the past rather than avoid it.
When people ask me about past UKIP policy I tell them what I thought of it, often not positive and the reason I joined the party when I did was I sensed a change in direction that I liked and a change in people at the top that suggested it would follow through, I wouldnt have joined otherwise. I have no nostalgic feelings about UKIP as a party at all that drive many supporters of political parties to defend them regardless of what they do or say.
>>And may I suggest that your main thrust should not be to justify your own views, it should be to convince me to adopt them.<<
There is no situation where you would agree with me so with that knowledge it is entirely pointless, I know you well enough to know where you stand. If you have questions I would certainly try and answer them but I respect your right to hold a different opinion to me.
Actually though I find with many voters that explaining why I think and feel as I do is the best way to convince them although that has to go hand in hand with understanding what they want too so I draw particular elements depending on what they tell me.
|
>>There is no situation where you would agree with me so with that knowledge it is entirely pointless,
There are many situations in which I would agree, none in which you should give up.
My point was that I do not feel that the main thrust of your argument should be to try to justify why you are reasonable to believe these things; rather it should be to justify why I, or any other, would be reasonable to do so.
However, I was really slinging a rock at your comment about a politician from an opposition party. Do you mean that since he [re]joined the Conservatives you would sling out any and every idea because he is/was "the opposition" even if they were good?
Or did you mean that the ideas were inappropriate and should be slung out whatever, in which case how is it relevant that he is "opposition"?
In fact, surely UKIP believe that one should adopt good ideas wherever they come from, and not indulge in the petty prejudices and game playing of the main parties.
Hence your comment that "it was entirely logical to disown a manifesto written by a member of an opposition party" is about as wrong as one can get, not to mention gratuitous and rather more suited to the behaviour UKIP attributes to the main parties.
Just getting across what you mean, even when you mean it honestly, is difficult. As UKIP is beginning to discover.
|
>>My point was that I do not feel that the main thrust of your argument should be to try to justify why you are reasonable to believe these things; rather it should be to justify why I, or any other, would be reasonable to do so.<<
Lead by example is a well proven idea - if people think I am reasonable, which most who know me do, they then atleast give me a hearing. I am not trying to convince you anyway, not my role.
>>Do you mean that since he [re]joined the Conservatives you would sling out any and every idea because he is/was "the opposition" even if they were good?<<
No but the 2015 manifesto is essentially not going to be a follow on from the 2010 piece of work, they started with a clean sheet as far as the actual document is concerned in the same way that some car makers facelift a car and others start again from the ground up. Will it still be aiming for low tax, small state, local democracy and EU exit? Certainly, but it will be written from the starting point of the core beliefs rather than what has gone before.
>>Just getting across what you mean, even when you mean it honestly, is difficult. As UKIP is beginning to discover.<<
Doesnt matter what I say, I am happily a nobody and can afford to talk utter rubbish :-)
|
>So, if by 2012 it had changed to a party which felt no connection to, or allegiance to, policy,
>statements and commitments made by the party in 2012, why on earth should I trust anything you say
>now as being relevant in 2016?
If that is your measure of a political party you're going to be severely limited for choice I'm afraid.
|
>>If that is your measure of a political party you're going to be severely limited for choice I'm afraid.
I don't really think that any other party has evolved quite so dramatically in such a short period, thus it might be a concern about them where not so much about the more established groups.
And of course its one of my measures? Is it not one of yours? Don't you care what the people you vote for will be like in two years?
|
>>Yeah, that'll help them stand apart from Clegg, Cameron and Milliband.<<
Nigel is only two years older than Cameron and Clegg, are you having trouble telling him apart from them? If you are, Nigel is the one who isnt stressing about his poll ratings :-)
|
>>who isnt stressing about his poll ratings
Given how the tendency over recent years is for every politician to panic about every mention of anything he does in the media and how it reflects in the opinion polls, it is very interesting to notice how eventual election performance seems almost entirely disconnected from the trivial, incompetent and biased ad hoc "spot polls" conducted by the media.
|
Polls havent really managed to predict UKIP very well anyway so I just tell people who worry about them in the party to put the work in and wait for the result on polling day, it is afterall the only poll that counts.
|
People do not think when they vote =- they vote from habit. Or at least most of them do,
Recall the woman who was called a "bigot" by G Brown. She still voted Labour.
Most parties have a band of idiots who would vote for them if the candidate was a donkey.. or a monkey..
See the many Tory voters who complain about the Government's policies as not being true to Tory values (also many journalists). As it's not a Tory Government but a Coalition, what do they expect?
Also see all the UKIP voters who think by voting UKIP they will leave the EU. Even if UKIP had a majority in the House of Commons, they have NO members of the House of Lords. So zero chance of any legislation passing for about six years..
|
Nigel has apparently 'confessed' that his party contains too many Walter Mitty types.
Jonathan Friedland in the Guardian suggests that's insulting:
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/28/ukip-members-walter-mitty-nigel-farage
......to Walter Mitty.
|
I would rather be a Kipper than a Lib Dem.
Apparently Ryan Hope was only suspended yesterday because they had a 'communication failure'. They have alot of those communication failures it seems.
Had he been in UKIP it would be headline news if a member was charged with such awful crimes yet only suspended months later, they would have written for days about how UKIP management were not in control of the party. Lib Dems though, almost nothing. I cant imagine why such a serious story would hardly be mentioned in the news.
|
Ryan Hope is a Lib Dem councillor in Weymouth aged 22 and charged with rape of a child. His trial commences in April.
Apparently he should have been suspended from Membership on charge but was not due to the 'communication breakdown' Stu mentions.
If he's guilty, he goes down and his seat falls vacant. If he's not it might get complicated if there are allegations of misconduct falling short of criminal.
Either way it's not really relevant to whether there are to many Kippers firing rounds off while loose on deck.
|
", Mr Farage will strike out in favour of cuts to the NHS"
tinyurl.com/p6nj9ce
That's a sure way of winning Labour voters......
Last edited by: madf on Tue 28 Jan 14 at 18:15
|
>>Either way it's not really relevant to whether there are to many Kippers firing rounds off while loose on deck.<<
It is an issue of poor party management in both cases, entirely relevant. Knowing who is standing under your party banner and what they are up to is basic branch management.
If such a thing happened at my branch I would reasonably expect that every party official would know about it and be pushing for a suspension, I dont really understand how you can fail to communicate something like this, the telephone is not a difficult device to use.
|
"I would rather be a Kipper than a Lib Dem."
Tricky decision though. Aren't there any other alternatives? Pretty much anything else would suit me. Estate agent or Jehova's Witness would be preferable.
|
>>Tricky decision though. Aren't there any other alternatives?<<
Of course but of the two I would choose the bad humour and off the cuff remarks of UKIP over multiple sex scandals.
|
Just seen Viviane Reding interviewed on Sky News.
Came across as an arrogant, patronising bully.
She didn't do pro-euro any favours at all. Farage must be smiling into his pint.
|
|
Witter witter witter yibble yibble yibble...
|
Been orf for a few days and I can't see any mention of Nigel Farage accepting Nick Clegg's challenge of a head-to-head debate on the in out in out of the EU.
www.lbc.co.uk/watch-will-farage-accept-cleggs-challenge-from-9am-86333
Erm, I listened to James O'Brian's program which follows Nick Farrari's program on LBC, he thoroughly wiped the floor with the swivel-eyed fruit cakes who phoned in to debate with him.
Clowns like that would dissuade gawd knows how many potential Ukip voters I'll wager.
|
>>Clowns like that would dissuade gawd knows how many potential Ukip voters I'll wager.<<
I would suggest that Labour voters have more to worry about than UKIP ones:
www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman
|
Can't bear that Dromey since I heard him speak at some Livingstonist gathering down by the Thames back when I was deciding I wasn't a socialist after all (not before time either, the writing had been on the wall for ages).
Anyone with half a brain and any children could see immediately that the PIE were just a bunch of snivelling opportunist self-interested perverts. However there was a lot of very silly libertarian theorising at the time which confused some people. I doubt if any of the three politicos mentioned really went along with it once the penny clunked home.
The Sunday People quoted along with the ghastly Mail is a truly filthy and lying yellow rag (with which I have a history dating from well before that business). Anyone who reads it regularly cannot conceivably be worth talking to.
|
>>I doubt if any of the three politicos mentioned really went along with it once the penny clunked home.<<
It will depend on how the evidence reads really, unusually for the Mail they actually went for a serious dig around on this story and it appears they think they have something.
I dont think there is much sympathy for libertarian theorising these days and on such a sensitive subject with the backdrop of historical abuse cases, even less so.
It will depend entirely on how much the story gets picked up by the media, the response from the 'trio' hasnt been exactly reassuring which makes me wonder if they are worried themselves.
Last edited by: Esse quam haberi on Fri 21 Feb 14 at 18:50
|
>>I would suggest that Labour voters have more to worry about than UKIP ones:
You didn't listen to the program Eqh, one of the callers was a kipper candidate from Lewis in West Sussex.
She came over as a bit-of-an ignoramus, as did the other kipper, it would have been better if they had just kept schtum.
I was a tad embarrassed for them TBH, even the radio show host was.
It would not put me orf voting UKIP of course - because I will be voting for their policies.
|
>>You didn't listen to the program Eqh, one of the callers was a kipper candidate from Lewis in West Sussex.
She came over as a bit-of-an ignoramus, as did the other kipper, it would have been better if they had just kept schtum<<
No that is true, I listened to the Farage one before that though. The trouble with standing ordinary people as candidates is that they can be a little ordinary, sometimes that includes not being especially articulate, especially when speaking in public. It is the price you pay for not raising them from a baby to be a politician. I have seen for myself that complete newbies, over time, improve as they find their feet but it does sometimes mean a degree of wincing until they do.
Dont know the names do you? Were they parliamentary or council candidates?
On the ignoramus issue, Lewes is in East Sussex :-p
|
>>Dont know the names do you? Were they parliamentary or council candidates?
I didn't catch their names but, there is a Podcast available: www.lbc.co.uk/james-obrien-3537
>>On the ignoramus issue, Lewes is in East Sussex :-p
AND we used to live in East Sussex!
|
>>AND we used to live in East Sussex!<<
Dont fancy being a candidate do you? Sound perfect :-)
I expect the person was a council candidate, the PPCs have to pass a public speaking test now I think. I doubt I would know them, most of the candidiates I know are more local although I know a handful of candidates in other areas of the country, I get about!
|
>>Dont fancy being a candidate do you? Sound perfect :-)
Stop it Stu, you're making my wife LOL!
|
>>Stop it Stu, you're making my wife LOL!<<
I hear Lewes in West Sussex has some openings... :-)
|
>> I would suggest that Labour voters have more to worry about than UKIP ones:
>>
>> www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman
It's a smear the Mail repeat on a regular basis. The NCCL as it then was was caught out by a bunch of highly manipulative individuals. Because of its structure at time and the bit about disagreeing with what you say but defending right to say it the outfit was in rock/hard place territory (as the manipulators fine knew).
All that said it ought to be possible for Harman/Hewitt/Dromey to come up with an apology - but dealing with snakes like Mail Editor Paul Dacre it's understandable that they prefer silence.
|
>>All that said it ought to be possible for Harman/Hewitt/Dromey to come up with an apology<<
That is what puzzles me about it and why I linked the Greenslade article as he obviously views it from a different perspective. I dont think the Mail being behind the story is justification for not apologising, NAPAC have also said they should apologise and I am pretty sure they dont fall under Dacre.
|
Stu,
NAPAC would say that, and not unreasonably. However that's incidental to the Dacre/Mail agenda which is likely to distort an apology and use it as a launch pad for further pursuit of it's own agenda.
|
>>NAPAC would say that, and not unreasonably. However that's incidental to the Dacre/Mail agenda which is likely to distort an apology and use it as a launch pad for further pursuit of it's own agenda.<<
I am in UKIP, you know I am all too aware of how the media distorts things but that doesnt mean you let it define you.
Not apologising for something that reasonable people think you should apologise for on the basis of what the Daily Mail will do is really weak. Try telling an abuse victim that you wont apologise because the Daily Mail might be mean about you - doesnt really cut it and the apology IS to abuse victims, it is those people they are refusing to apologise to, not the DM.
I feel quite strongly about this kind of issue for obvious reasons, if this really is about politics coming before decency it is shameful.
|
Bromp,
Just as an aside, Shami Charakrabatti DID apologise for the actions of the NCCL despite being a child at the time, she still had the decency to recognise what happened was wrong.
|
>> Bromp,
>>
>> Just as an aside, Shami Charakrabatti DID apologise for the actions of the NCCL despite
>> being a child at the time, she still had the decency to recognise what happened
>> was wrong.
Full marks to Shami but notwithstanding her youth, as the current leader of Liberty/NCCL, she's the right person to apologise on its behalf.
Harman and Hewitt were officers of the organisation at the time. Their job was to follow the directions of the elected committees etc of what was and is a democratic organisation.
The Mail and its editor are not publishing this story every few yeas out of a commitment to put right past wrongs. They're doing it in pursuit of their political agenda against the Labour Party. An apology from Harman & Hewitt will we publicised as a 'victory' for the paper. That won't be the end though. It will be portrayed as an 'admission' and likely to lead to further demands that they meet victims of PIE, another opportunity for the Mail to throw more emud.
Meanwhile the same paper prints pictures of Heidi Klum's daughter with caption Mum's not the only leggy beauty in the family. Leni Klum is eight years old.
|
>> Meanwhile the same paper prints pictures of Heidi Klum's daughter with caption Mum's not the
>> only leggy beauty in the family. Leni Klum is eight years old.
>>
Showing a picture of a child and saying she's attractive like her mother.. is world's apart from formally backing people who want to copulate with children.
If you are part of an organisation that corporately does something you wholeheartedly disagree with..then you leave it..and distance yourself from that angle.
I'm glad the Mail is highlighting the hypocrisy involved here.
|
If Harman et al had been Tories:
1. The DM would not print the allegations
2. The Guardian would have.
Any suggestion by either political party that its' "a witch hunt" is risible.
See the current trial about phone hacking.
|
>> If Harman et al had been Tories:
>> 1. The DM would not print the allegations
>> 2. The Guardian would have.
>>
>>
>> Any suggestion by either political party that its' "a witch hunt" is risible.
>>
>> See the current trial about phone hacking.
>>
Foneacking is a different kettle of fish.
NCCL found itself, thirty years ago, conflicted between its own objectives and 'morality'. It made a mistake but there's no suggestion that allowing PIE to affiliate involved criminality. It was also publicised by press (The Sunday People) at the time.
The Murdoch press (and likely the rest - see Information Commissioner's reports) were into illegal snooping in a massive way for years. Their own watchdog, the PCC, covered up for them as did over familiar relationships with Police etc.
No comparison whatsoever.
|
>> Showing a picture of a child and saying she's attractive like her mother.. is world's
>> apart from formally backing people who want to copulate with children.
>>
>> If you are part of an organisation that corporately does something you wholeheartedly disagree with..then
>> you leave it..and distance yourself from that angle.
>>
>> I'm glad the Mail is highlighting the hypocrisy involved here.
Will all see picture in that light? Other instances of Mail showing little girls in a sexualised context are also available.
The paper also fulminates about 'filth' on TV etc in it's news segment while having a right hand sidebar largely composed of starlets showing off their 'toned bikini figures'.
And the hypocrisy is where?
|
>> The paper also fulminates about 'filth' on TV etc in it's news segment while having
>> a right hand sidebar largely composed of starlets showing off their 'toned bikini figures'.
>>
>> And the hypocrisy is where?
Couldn't agree more...but that's not the main issue...a newspaper manipulating facts to suit itself, that's what most of them are all about.
Now, can you agree that Harman etc are out of order?
If the Guardian did this and it was against a Tory...I'd see the manipulation for what it was..AND.. digest the story being told...and if it meant someone from the field of politics I support having to resign/be sacked or apologise or whatever it was that was needed, that's the way I would go.
I most definitely would not be trying to support them...I'd think they were doing 'my lot' harm and should deal with it pronto.
|
>> Now, can you agree that Harman etc are out of order?
Harman was an employee of a campaigning charity (as was Hewitt). Her responsibility was to provide advice and briefing to the body itself and to carry out the policy objectives set by its elected Council. If the Council said PIE might be admitted then her job was to (a) advise them as to whether this was within objectives artiles of association etc and (b) to carry decisions into effect.
I suspect she knew at the time this was going to be trouble and does now. But as you and I both know you don't kick over the corporate traces without VERY good cause. Not only does it make trouble now, it taints your future too.
Privately she'd probably want to apologise. But as I said already that won't be end of matter; Dacre's visceral hatred of Labour is such that he'll use it further for his own political (and commercial) ends.
|
>> Harman and Hewitt were officers of the organisation at the time. Their job was to
>> follow the directions of the elected committees etc of what was and is a democratic
>> organisation.
If you were on an elected committee..and that committee supported paedophilia...would you not first of all try to vote that out..and if unsuccessful, resign from the committee?
Would you honestly just shrug your shoulders and say 'oh well, it was done democratically, so I had to go along with it'?
|
>>Harman and Hewitt were officers of the organisation at the time. Their job was to follow the directions of the elected committees etc of what was and is a democratic organisation <<
I see you avoid mentioning Dromey who sat on the NCCL executive committee, I am guessing you dont consider that a position of responsibility.
Mud only sticks if there is something for it to stick to.
|
>Full marks to Shami but notwithstanding her youth, as the current leader of
>Liberty/NCCL, she's the right person to apologise on its behalf.
She distanced the current organisation from any backlash by a simple apology. She's pretty smart.
>Harman and Hewitt were officers of the organisation at the time. Their job was to follow
>the directions of the elected committees etc of what was and is a democratic organisation.
What utter BS!
No-one forced them to do it. If they disapproved of what was happening they could have said "No!" and/or resigned. They didn't, they went along with it. They were promoting an agenda of legalising sexual activity between adults and children FFS! Not exactly a trivial matter was it?
>The Mail and its editor are not publishing this story every few yeas..blah, blah, blah,..
Oh, I'm sure that Harman, Hewitt and Dromey (and yourself) would love this story to quietly fade away without them having to explain themselves. I hope The Mail sticks with it until they have to.
|
>>I hope The Mail sticks with it until they have to <<
Given the story on Demetrious Panton in the Mail today it seems to have plenty in the tank, Margaret Hodge doesnt cover herself in glory.
|
This is all fairly ancient history, from a different era in which paedophilia was not much covered in the press and not much considered by the general public.
These days it's the other way round: people are obsessed with paedophilia and think they see it everywhere. Even worse in a way.
You had to have half a brain, and actually read the stuff (yuck) to see what PIE were up to. I don't suppose those young idealists really had, or did. They have perhaps grown up subsequently.
|
>Harman and Hewitt were officers of the organisation at the time. Their job was to follow
>the directions of the elected committees etc of what was and is a democratic organisation.
''''
Ah yes, The Auschwitz prison guard defence. Nuremberg destroyed it
|
>> Ah yes, The Auschwitz prison guard defence. Nuremberg destroyed it
For mass murder it did.
For a corporate c*ck up over allowing a devious outfit to affiliate and consequences thereof it did not.
AC sums it up pretty well.
|
>>You had to have half a brain, and actually read the stuff (yuck) to see what PIE were up to.
>>I don't suppose those young idealists really had, or did. They have perhaps grown up subsequently.
>AC sums it up pretty well.
They were half-wits who didn't realise what they were doing?
What's changed?
Last edited by: Kevin on Sat 22 Feb 14 at 22:50
|
>> They were half-wits who didn't realise what they were doing?
>>
>> What's changed?
As you fine know I was referring to to the first two paras of AC's post and the 'actually read the stuff' line. One would have needed a decent dictionary to look up the word Paedophile in 1980, it wan't a term of conversation/common abuse as now.
PIE sought/obtained affiliation to NCCL by presenting themselves as providing counselling etc to such people. It got in by way of under radar/cock up.
|
>> Ah yes, The Auschwitz prison guard defence. Nuremberg destroyed it
What cobblers madf. There's a distinction - perhaps too fine for some to see - between a Nazi governmental murder institution and an idealistic campaigning organization, containing people of widely differing views.
Sheesh... that was a really appalling thing to say.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 22 Feb 14 at 23:11
|
>> >> Ah yes, The Auschwitz prison guard defence. Nuremberg destroyed it
>>
>> What cobblers madf. There's a distinction - perhaps too fine for some to see -
>> between a Nazi governmental murder institution and an idealistic campaigning organization, containing people of widely
>> differing views.
Hmm.
Totally different circumstances, I'd agree..but...the principle is the same.
It's called standing up and saying 'that's wrong'.
Now if you were in a vile totalitarian regime and it wasn't wise to stand out from the crowd.. then perhaps the rest of us should understand that.. however, what excuse do you have when you are in amongst the (or one of the) world's truest democracy.
|
>> Hmm.
>>
>> Totally different circumstances, I'd agree..but...the principle is the same.
>>
>> It's called standing up and saying 'that's wrong'.
>>
>> Now if you were in a vile totalitarian regime and it wasn't wise to stand
>> out from the crowd.. then perhaps the rest of us should understand that.. however, what
>> excuse do you have when you are in amongst the (or one of the) world's
>> truest democracy.
I'm not sure we know exactly what went on at the time. PIE, portraying itself as a body providing counselling and information to those sexually attracted to children, sought to affiliate to NCCL. We don't know how controversial that affiliation was or whether it needed to go to those at the top of the organisation to be accepted.
Think I remember reading the 'expose' c82/3 in a housemate's copy of the Sunday People. The word Paedophile was pretty well new to my vocabulary at the time. Suspect it was to everyone else too. If the word had the currency etc it does today it's very doubtful the characters setting it up would have chosen it for their title. At the time it probably looked pseudo scientific.
Interesting piece in today's Guardian suggesting that Harman/Hewitt should, rather than bein trapped into apology explain the context in which all this took place.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt-pie-nccl-paedophile-claims
Maybe that's the way forward.
Whether this country is one of the world's truest democracies is a question for another day!!
|
>>Interesting piece in today's Guardian suggesting that Harman/Hewitt should, rather than bein trapped into apology explain the context in which all this took place. Maybe that's the way forward <<
Indeed. The line "And yet the mischief does not invalidate the stories, nor mean that there are not questions to answer" is the point I made before.
Thing is, if someone accused you of this sort of thing, I am sure you would be front and centre with a deep desire to explain how and why you were in that position, as would I. The fact that the trio havent sought to explain themselves rather makes one wonder if they dont believe they have a good explanation to give.
|
>> Thing is, if someone accused you of this sort of thing, I am sure you
>> would be front and centre with a deep desire to explain how and why you
>> were in that position, as would I. The fact that the trio havent sought to
>> explain themselves rather makes one wonder if they dont believe they have a good explanation
>> to give.
I would, but I'm not a prominent national politician on Paul Dacre's cross hairs. Whatever they say the Mail is likely to misrepresent it or conflate it with something else in order to spread more mud.
In present atmosphere silence may be the advised policy.
|
>> I would, but I'm not a prominent national politician on Paul Dacre's cross hairs. Whatever
>> they say the Mail is likely to misrepresent it or conflate it with something else
>> in order to spread more mud.
Just like the Guardian would then, for a Tory politician
>>
>> In present atmosphere silence may be the advised policy.
Who would advise that? Why not be honest?
|
>> >>
>> >> In present atmosphere silence may be the advised policy.
>>
>> Who would advise that? Why not be honest?
>>
I would imagine the opportunity to be honest would be limited by the (any) paper's need to spin/edit whatever was said.
|
>>I would, but I'm not a prominent national politician on Paul Dacre's cross hairs. Whatever they say the Mail is likely to misrepresent it or conflate it with something else in order to spread more mud.
In present atmosphere silence may be the advised policy. <<
This whole 'Daily Mail' excuse is absurd, the Labour Party has plenty of friends in the leftwing press, including the Guardian, who are obviously following the story and would doubtless offer them a comfortable platform on which to address the issue.
|
>> This whole 'Daily Mail' excuse is absurd, the Labour Party has plenty of friends in
>> the leftwing press, including the Guardian, who are obviously following the story and would doubtless
>> offer them a comfortable platform on which to address the issue.
The Mail, particularly via it website, has wormed itself into a position where it's regarded as the conscience of Middle England. Not just or the Tories either, Blair was just as much in awe.
While the Guardian might be a platform for an explanation it requires caution for exactly the 'friends in the left wing press' point you articulate.
If you start from standpoint that this whole thing is generated as a smear then keeping quiet and denying the story 'legs' has its attractions.
|
|
The Guardian, particularly via its website, has wormed itself into a position where it's regarded as the conscience of trendy metro left faux socialism.
Last edited by: Roger on Sun 23 Feb 14 at 21:23
|
>> If you start from standpoint that this whole thing is generated as a smear then
>> keeping quiet and denying the story 'legs' has its attractions.
>>
Smear...a false accusation intended to damage someone’s reputation.
Can't wait for the legal action to clear their names then.
|
>If you start from standpoint that this whole thing is generated as a smear then keeping quiet
>and denying the story 'legs' has its attractions.
Oh yes. If you begin with that assumption.
Oh, and if you deliberately ignore the fact that the "story" came from research in the official archives at LSE and Hull University. And, if you think that Joe Public won't approve why you lobbied to have the age of consent lowered to 10, and actively assisted a group who wanted it lowered to 4.
Yeah, I can see why keeping schtum might be attractive.
For Glub's sake Bromp, your paranoia with The Mail is becoming so tiresome it's pathetic, even your beloved Gruinaud is calling for them to give an explanation of their involvement.
Last edited by: Kevin on Sun 23 Feb 14 at 21:39
|
>> For Glub's sake Bromp, your paranoia with The Mail is becoming so tiresome it's pathetic, even your beloved Gruinaud is calling for them to give an explanation of their involvement.
Not so much paranoia, more acute distaste, often stimulated. That's the way it looks to me. The DM is a disgusting rag, don't you agree Kevin?
And what's this Glub business? Why not say God like everyone else? Euphemism or what?
I remember the picaresque novel that coined the term, but not in any detail because it wasn't memorable. Can't remember the author's name. But the word has a resonance with me for different, personal reasons. That's mere information though, no emotional charge.
|
>> Not so much paranoia, more acute distaste, often stimulated. That's the way it looks to
>> me. The DM is a disgusting rag, don't you agree Kevin?
Can't answer for Kevin...but I for one would agree the DM is a lowlife rag...however, it wouldn't matter to me what outfit highlighted something..if it was interesting and pertinent, I'd take note and be interested in the outcome.
'Don't shoot the messenger' springs to mind..
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 07:41
|
>The DM is a disgusting rag, don't you agree Kevin?
It isn't on my regular reading list AC. I did try it once when I was younger but didn't inhale.
>And what's this Glub business? Why not say God like everyone else? Euphemism or what?
Before everyone and their dog was online, public use of the internet was primarily for email and newsgroups (usenet). Glub was a term used in many newsgroups as a substitute for "insert the deity of your choice".
|
>> Glub was a term used in many newsgroups as a substitute for "insert the deity of your choice".
Ah... a civil and precise answer.
I remember the term from a novel, I think set in some colonial part of Africa.
My post looks a bit abrupt and accusing. Sorry.
|
Kevin,
No paranoia is involved. The fact is that the Mail is viscerally anti Labour and has been since the Zinoviev letter and before. David English, who pulled the paper out of the doldrums in the seventies at least had some charm. Present editor Dacre is a foul mouthed Rotweiller.
Nobody denies the basic facts that:
(a) PIE was an affiliate of NCCL
(b) NCCL made submissions in 1976 to the Criminal Law Review Commission on sexual offences including age of consent.
The former was probably achieved by subterfuge with PIE portraying itself as concerned with Gay rights rather than its real objective. The latter was undoubtedly misguided though a basic law of consent of 14 (with an age difference qualifier) and some loosening of the law on non coercive incest would not be unreasonable today.
NCCL, in its current guise as Liberty, has rightly apologised.
Hewitt was Gen Sec from 74 to 83 and Harman Legal Officer from 78 to 82. That puts Harman out of the frame at the time of the submissions to CLRC and a relative latecomer to the PIE affiliation. Other people, non of whom the Mail has sought to name/shame, were also officers or senior members of NCCL over that time period.
Albeit founded in fact this story is intended to smear and discredit. It has nothing to do with righting wrongs or ameliorating the condition of kids abused bt PIE members.
|
>>That puts Harman out of the frame at the time of the submissions to CLRC and a relative latecomer to the PIE affiliation <<
So the official NCCL response, signed by Harman in April 1978, to the Protection of Children Bill to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under 16s which called it "increased censorship" was infact faked and she didnt sign it - that is what you are saying is it?
|
>> So the official NCCL response, signed by Harman in April 1978, to the Protection of
>> Children Bill to tighten the laws on child pornography by banning indecent images of under
>> 16s which called it "increased censorship" was infact faked and she didnt sign it -
>> that is what you are saying is it?
>>
Submissions on the Protection of Children Bill are not the point I was making. I specifically mentioned CLRC and affiliation of PIE to NCCL
There's a perfectly legitimate point of view that says the bill was too widely drawn and potentially criminalised innocent pictures of, for example, naked children caught in a beach scene. NCCL lobbied for a 'harm' test. Just because the bill was promoted as tightening the law on child pornography doesn't make every clause justified still less place the whole thing on a pantheon where it cannot be criticised.
I suspect a reading of the debates on the bill will turn up some opposition from libertarian Tories.
|
>>NCCL lobbied for a 'harm' test.<<
The 'harm' test has been the cornerstone of the pro arguments that most organisations like PIE have advocated over many years, even to the present day, why on earth would you want to add credibility to their cause if infact you opposed it?
So where does Dromey fit into your circle of innocence? I see you repeatedly exclude him in your answers, what gives?
Leftwing press are starting to pick this story up now, not a good sign for your 'bury bad news' technique, even the Labour lapdog Maguire has waded in now.
|
>> The 'harm' test has been the cornerstone of the pro arguments that most organisations like
>> PIE have advocated over many years, even to the present day, why on earth would
>> you want to add credibility to their cause if infact you opposed it?
I see NCCL's submission on the Protection of Children Bill in a wider, practical, sense. A law framed in one context being 'mission creeped' into another is a well known risk (see extradition to the USA). I cannot find the Commons second reading debates but the question of definition troubled Lords Scarman and Wigoder, both Law Lords, when the bill was before the Upper House.
>> So where does Dromey fit into your circle of innocence? I see you repeatedly exclude
>> him in your answers, what gives?
Dromey was a trustee of the organisation and at relevant times also a senior official of the T&GWU. He's been dragged in as Harman's husband. At best he's a bit part player in NCCL.
>> Leftwing press are starting to pick this story up now, not a good sign for
>> your 'bury bad news' technique, even the Labour lapdog Maguire has waded in now.
Maguire?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 24 Feb 14 at 14:41
|
>>Dromey was a trustee of the organisation and at relevant times also a senior official of the T&GWU. He's been dragged in as Harman's husband. At best he's a bit part player in NCCL. <<
Sitting on the NCCL executive committee for 9 years (70-79 ) makes him a bit part player? And there was me thinking that sitting on the committee I sit on meant I had to carry the can for anything that went wrong, apparently not! I can start to relax now then...
>> Maguire? <<
Sorry I thought he had reached Boris like levels of name recognition on the Left given how much Tory bashing he does. Our lad, Kevin, Associate Editor of the Daily Mirror comic.
|
>Kevin,
>No paranoia is involved. The fact is that the Mail is viscerally anti Labour..
>Present editor Dacre is a foul mouthed Rotweiller.
Bromp,
the Mail can be as viscerally anti Labour as it likes, just as other rags can be as anti Tory, Lib-Dem, UKIP, Green, MRL as they like. As long as they stay the right side of the legal line you're going to have to get over it. It's nothing new and sure as hell isn't going to change.
>Albeit founded in fact this story is intended to smear and discredit.
At least they are facts, unlike the smear campaigns that McBride, Draper and others got up to eh?
|
>> I'm not sure we know exactly what went on at the time. PIE, portraying itself
>> as a body providing counselling and information to those sexually attracted to children, sought to
>> affiliate to NCCL.
Even if a bona fide outfit/charity was out there trying to better the life of perverts...why would the NCCL want to be affiliated with it?
We don't know how controversial that affiliation was or whether it needed
>> to go to those at the top of the organisation to be accepted.
So those at the top didn't know? What were they doing then? What was the point of having them there?
>> Think I remember reading the 'expose' c82/3 in a housemate's copy of the Sunday People.
You worried we might think you bought a copy of the Sunday People?
>> The word Paedophile was pretty well new to my vocabulary at the time. Suspect it
>> was to everyone else too. If the word had the currency etc it does today
>> it's very doubtful the characters setting it up would have chosen it for their title.
>> At the time it probably looked pseudo scientific.
It doesn't matter what it was called and what fancy words were used, adults wanting to copulate with children is plain wrong. It was as wrong then as it is now.
>> Interesting piece in today's Guardian suggesting that Harman/Hewitt should, rather than bein trapped into apology
>> explain the context in which all this took place.
They need to be straightforward and honest. I know that's difficult for a politician. If it needs contrition, then so be it..get on with it.
It matters not whether they've been trapped by the Right wing press...if they'd done nothing wrong (and that includes doing nothing), there'd be nothing to be trapped about.
>> Whether this country is one of the world's truest democracies is a question for another
>> day!!
It has its flaws, Id grant you...but it is one of the better ones.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sun 23 Feb 14 at 15:39
|
Agreed - much of the Mail's starlet/celebrity so-called "news" is utter trash. That lowers its other offerings, in my view.
That does not detract from the indisputable fact that its political and social comments stance accurately reflects the opinions of millions of Britons.
It is far more reflective of public opinion than the Guardian is!
|
>> It is far more reflective of public opinion than the Guardian is!
>>
and probably equally devoid of accurate factual information
|
"That does not detract from the indisputable fact that its political and social comments stance accurately reflects the opinions of millions of Britons."
What a depressing thought.
|
|
Compared to the Daily/Sunday Sport, the DM is highbrow,
|
>> Compared to the Daily/Sunday Sport, the DM is highbrow,
>>
The problem is that the readers of the DM believe that it IS highbrow:)
|
>> "That does not detract from the indisputable fact that its political and social comments stance
>> accurately reflects the opinions of millions of Britons."
>>
>> What a depressing thought.
Look on the bright side, its not enough millions to consider pandering to them.
|
>> its not enough millions to consider pandering to them.
Unless you are the editor of a right-wing yellow rag or the leader of a marginal right-wing political party of course.
|
These allegations have been doing the rounds on social media for a week or two.
I'm inclined to believe Harman for once. I don't particularly care for her as a person or a politician but I very much doubt if she even knew anything about it let alone sanctioned it.
|
My impression is that Shami Chakrabarti obviously thought there was something to apologise for, she is generally a thoughtful woman with access to all the relevant information. I am inclined to think she is right on this one, it was never a case of individual actions but the company one keeps.
I doubt the last word has been said on this.
|
>> My impression is that Shami Chakrabarti obviously thought there was something to apologise for, she
>> is generally a thoughtful woman with access to all the relevant information. I am inclined
>> to think she is right on this one, it was never a case of individual
>> actions but the company one keeps.
>>
>> I doubt the last word has been said on this.
A corporate apology, rightly given, clears the air.
Selectively pursuing a few former officials/members who've achieved office in a party to which you're viscerally opposed is a Witch Hunt.
|
UKIP - Volume 4 - Manatee
