Will the loony left rape your daughters?

[darmstadt]

Will the Rabid Right continue their dissemination of paedophilia?

Daily Mail and young girls: https://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...ising-children

Daily Mail readers need to be reported to the police: Protection of Children Act 1978 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the UK, images of scantily dressed girls under 18 (or who look under 18) are classed as level 1 child pornography. The distribution or possession of such images can result in prison sentences.

[petergriffin]

Daily Mail readers need to be reported to the police: Protection of Children Act 1978 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Isn't the Protection of Children Act 1978 - what the UKIP/BNP-"Love Britain" and the Tories want to get rid of? Or is it just the human rights that they don't like?

[amcdonald]

I presume that you have behaved just as members of the Bullingdon club behaved as students? What they have done is to perfectly normal for students. Their crime is that they were posh. I also presume that you have not behaved like a paedophile? So quite why you wish to equate the two groups you might like to explain.

Its clear blue water over who to vote for, the nasty party vs the paedo party

[xoggoth]

Should/could Harman have done something different? No idea and can't be bothered to check because I don't give a damn. Not a fan, but I very much doubt she's a supporter of kiddie fiddlers and, even if she was, it says nothing whatever about the Labour party.

Smearing whole groups or parties just because of some poor judgement by an individual unrelated to their official role, some odd extremist or nutty member is just pathetic, whether it's by righties or lefties. How about concentrating on the real issues? The actual party policies and what they mean for UK citizens.

[GreyWolf]

She's a useful idiot

I don't know what Harman's real view is but I strongly suspect she isn't really a paedo. On the other hand, she mostly certainly is a dim-witted aristocrat who has risen way beyond her abilities by virtue of her background, connections and willingness to do whatever dumb-arsed crap her masters tell her to.

Her "born to rule" arrogance and general pig-ignorance was amply demonstrated when she refused to remain at the scene of car accident, airily telling the other witnesses "I'm Harriet Harman, you know where to get me".

This is the St Paul's Girls' school educated niece of a Viscount. If she'd taken another path and joined the Conservatives she could possibly have carved out a career as a twin-set and pearls wearing fundraiser or perhaps just about made it to being an obscure backbencher. Fortunately for her, she joined the one political movement that positively welcomes useful idiots so her willingness to spout whatever old toss is in fashion this week has got her to high office.

This is, after all, Labour. The party that supports gay rights but also seeks support from people who want to hang gays from cranes, the party that wants to dig coal out of the ground but doesn't want to burn it, the party that claims to be concerned for the poor but caused an enormous boom in the price of shelter. Being able to hold a dozen contradictory views by not believing, understanding or really caring about any of them is a positive boon for them. She thought there was nothing wrong with her husband being elected in a seat with an all-women shortlist.

The people further up in the movement love useful idiots like her because the more people like Harman do to make the country an unpleasant, ungovernable hellhole the more sooner they can step in to "restore order" and usher in their glorious revolution. Supporting paedo rights is all part of the march through the institutions necessary to bring down society from within and for that you need people too stupid to think for themselves.

That's the reality of Harman - too damn stupid to really believe in anything.

[expat]

I don't know what Harman's real view is but I strongly suspect she isn't really a paedo.

That much is not seriously in question. The real questions include whether she supported freedom of speech for a group that she presumably didn't like, and whether it's wrong to do so. Or in this case whether it's wrong to support freedom of speech for a group that someone else, in this case the Daily Mail, doesn't like.

The NCCL supported freedom of speech, and did not get into questions of whether they had to agree in any way with that speech first; which IMHO is only right.
As in, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend with my life your right to say it".
As in the American ACCL defending the American Nazi Party's right to freedom of speech: not a betrayal of their principles IMHO but rather a resounding proof of their belief in those principles.

Personally I emphatically support freedom of speech, and I have grave doubts whether one can self-censor this support. Who would I trust to restrict freedom of speech? Not the government. Not you - and probably not me either.