Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Hypocrite Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt in the news over the last couple of days regarding their association with P.I.E. Thought there may be some comment, perhaps if they were Tories and not Labour this board would have seen a deluge of posts from the usual red brigade.
2517

The information being released is getting worse.

Patriciea Hewitt's was the sole name on an NCCL press release calling for the age of consent to be lowered to 14. It also suggested that if a child was over 10 then the other party had to show that there was consent. This is really bizzare as under 16 is known as statutory rape as consent is not legally possible. Harman is on increasingly shaky ground by refusing to say sorry. She was the legal counsel for the NCCL and should have scrutinised policy documents.

NCCL even placed a recruitment advert for new members in PIE’s house magazine. What sort of people did they expect to recruit for the magazine of the Paedophile Information Exchange?

George - i thoroughly agree though there's little doubt in my mind that this is just rather naughty muck raking ..... nevertheless, it does seem to me that the 3 in question should have been rather more (at all!) forthright in their apologies or whatever

2517

If you were a solicitor, barrister, or policeman would you not be prepared to listen to, or represent a client in court, whether you agreed with their views of not?

If not, if you were falsely accused of a "moral" and/or "criminal crime" would you prefer the evidence against you examined and yourself defended, or would you prefer summary justice to be handed down by your peers?

Also, it is reasonable to examine the mores or morality of the period.

If you recall, homosexuality, buggery and a large percentage of "routinely carried" out abortions were illegal and condemned 40 years ago and many kangaroo courts or outings by the press were "hallowed" by some.

"Morality" is constantly being challenged.



===========

Also, if you worked in an organisation of over 20 people could you guarantee that all your colleagues were on the straight and narrow morally?

Do you investigate all your colleagues with their possible deviations in mind?

The Slog has some dirt on the luvvies.



http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/the-paedofile-while-miranda-moore-qc-goes-for-a-second-bite-of-dlt-the-site-alice-love-is-openly-attracting-pre-pubertal-sex-perverts/

Haze,

"What sort of people did they expect to recruit for the magazine of the Paedophile Information Exchange?"

I may be gullible, but if you drop the "magazine" out of the question and I was a research student I might wish to correspond, inquire or discuss "sexual deviations" with them.

Also remark of " statutory rape" of under 16 years olds.

Suggest you look at the number of prosecutions and under 16 year old pregnancies and under sixteen year old "mums".

----------

This is muck raking for an attempt to gain political gain and circulation figures, by what many see as a distasteful group representing the salacious views of a portion of the
torrid party.

as opposed to the (better organised?) muck raking from other quarters perhaps?
except of course, the reprehensible and surely politically-motivated campaign against andrew mitchell that has spectacularly backfired albeit rather late in the day

fossy will start claiming that scargill (and the rest of his wrecking crew) has been unfairly maligned for all these years, or more recently, bob crowe

Haystack Send an email to Haystack View Haystack's profile - 27 Feb 2014 22:35 - 37183 of 37195

More important things to debate.........................ends

Certainly is for once hays you are right.

Its all part of the Mails crusade to get the Tories elected, but sadly for them the average Joe in the street doesnt read their paper and secondly the average joe cares more about the pound in is pocket and not some silly old smear campaign roped up from the past.

Cynic un-filtered, after 5 day sanction.

oh goody goody :-)
silly boy you are sometimes :-))


btw, you're certainly right about the pound in your pocket etc - forget Our 'arold!

what should concern us all is the inevitable backlash against both major parties for the unabated influx of immigrants from the likes of romania and bulgaria who have no job lined up, and also the impatience (at best) of getting a far better deal from eu

the conservatives at least want a significant renegotiation - whether there is or would be any chance to achieve that is another matter
on the other side, labour seem totally uninterested, which is surely insane

that leaves you with the kippers, assuming you are going to vote at all, though personally i do not agree at all that we should just cut and run from eu

Some good points made above Cynic dont agree with them all but watch for my next post this might affect you.

hmrc chasing tax avoiders? :-)

Coalition to impose sanctions on housing benefit

Part-time workers who are judged to be doing too little to find full-time work could have their Housing Benefit sanctioned by the government when Universal Credit comes into full force, according to Inside Housing.

The revelation is the latest in a long line of benefit betrayals to be inflicted on the poor by the Coalition government. The new development also means landlords stand to lose out.

The Department for Work and Pensions has confirmed to Inside Housing that under Universal Credit, where a tenant is working less than 35 hours per week at minimum wage and is not eligible for JSA or ESA, then the housing element can be sanctioned instead.

It seems clear that the government is determined that it should be able to take income away from everyone who is not being properly paid by their employer. Does this seem fair to you?

Under the present system, Housing Benefit is paid direct to landlords, meaning sanctions against tenants can only be applied to out-of-work benefits like Jobseekers’ Allowance or Employment and Support Allowance. The aim is to use Universal Credit to spread the threat of sanctions so that it covers people in low-paid work as well. Would you consider any government that did this to be standing up “for hardworking people”?

The article quotes a DWP spokesperson who said: “It is only right that people claiming benefits should be aware that not sticking to the rules can have a consequence.”

This, of course, assumes that a person is breaking the rules if their employer refuses to improve their working conditions… but we know that the government has altered working conditions to ensure that employers are under no pressure to do so; the benefit cap, and the one per cent limit on the annual uprating of benefits have ensured that people without jobs will become continually worse-off, so those who are in work cannot demand pay increases for fear of being handed their P45s and told that someone else will do their job for less.

Are these the actions of a government that believes we are “all in it together”?

If anybody thinks they can find justification for this behaviour, please get in touch.

The new development also means landlords stand to lose out.

The landlords will just get different tenants.

Especially as Direct payment to landlords is to be abolished nationaly and claimants will be paid monthly instead of fortnightly or weekly.

THINK OF THE ARREARS OF RENT WHICH MAY BUILD UP.

Stick to drinking Hays you obviously dont know how hard and long a process it is to get someone evicted.

And at a loss of rent which you never see again.

Not difficult at all. I have a friend with a large number of properties and I have helped him with the process and paperwork.

Yes youve got a lot of freinds you havent you.

Talking shite again.

Manuel.

Why don't you engage the remnants of you brain before rushing out your foolish opinions.

You should apply for the editorship of the Mail or similar.

Rent a mouth comes to mind.


--------------


As I posted early Mitchell was abusive and possibly used "foul" language to the police at the "gates".

Any sensible person would have apologized and in probability it would have passed as a non-event.

Instead, the guardian of the "tax payers purse" elevated it to a farce and the state has paid, or is paying for his "vanity".


(I the past and in temper, I have cursed the police on a number of occasions, but had the sense to apologise for doing so. They a have done like so to me.)

================

Right Scargill.

Before shooting off you mouth, look back at what I have posted about Scargill before making "false" assertions.

But, although I disagree with much of what Scargill did and stood for, I do feel he was maligned by the Murdoch and tory press, as often he was an easy political target for the right wing of the con party to scapegoat for their own managerial incompetence and mistakes.

Similar to the scapegoating of migrants, the EU and "weakest members" of the population.

It is dirty politics as practiced by the con members of the coalition government.

The NASTY PARTY IS BACK and it stinks.