First of all, I was amazed to stumble across the Harman/NCCL story on Newsnight last night (a usually unwatchable programme). I was amazed because it was a negative story about a Left wing person and fairly extreme Left at that, who are normally a protected species as far as the BBC (and Guardian/Observer) are concerned.
Cynicism held its ground though as the interviewer, Laura Kuenssberg started with a leading question blaming The Mail for making her have to speak out, to defend herself. Harman readily agreed and I expected this to continue, but as Harman was plainly not going to give a straight answer to even fairly innocuous questions, Laura appeared to get a bit annoyed. She started insisting on getting an answer, or failing that, to keep asking.
Exasperated at such unexpected quizzing from the normally reliable BBC, Harman launched a remarkable, unsupportable tirade against The Mail, suggesting, but not directly saying, that it prints pictures of 'very young girls in bikinis', meaning under-age. Meaning, but not saying.
The performance of the money grubbing politician (her and her husband both suck on the State) was incredible. The NCCL didn't vet 'affiliates' they just took the money, so it wasn't a 'real' relationship. She knew nothing about the PIE, spoke out against them at the time and they had been got rid of by the time she joined. Laura said they were affiliated from 1976 to 1983. Harman did a 'and your point is?' reply.
At the outburst about Mail pictures, Laura tried to get her to confirm she was all but accusing The Mail of publishing paedophile pictures, but all she got was a smug smile from Harman of the 'its self evident, surely' variety. The lawyer in her carefully not saying what she is clearly inferring. Like trying to ignore the letter she wrote for the NCCL objecting to the possession of pornographic pictures of children becoming a crime.
Just as outrageous though, was when normal service was resumed next day on the BBC Breakfast programme. Here the 'news' article about the interview, concentrated on the 'fact' that The Mail publishes pictures that are, well, you know. And that Harman had been smeared by the paper. The report even said that the NCCL was 'once' associated with the Paedophile Information Exchange. 'Once' here meaning from 1976 to 1983.
As ever, Left wing politics trumps all, including the welfare of children. Nothing is more important than ideology.
Showing posts with label Harriet Harman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Harriet Harman. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 February 2014
Monday, 4 February 2013
Calling Occupants Of Planet Cameron
Why does David Cameron have an impact on what goes on, on the planet he rarely visits? The manifesto 'pledge' for a tax break for married couples has been dropped, so he can spend time on a project that no-one asked for, homosexual marriage.
Who on earth (no pun intended) put this in Cameron's head? It is being pushed by activists no doubt and some of them may be homosexuals, rather than the anarchist ingrates that are behind most of these attacks on Western civilisation (because it is 'capitalist').
First the Left tried to set the battleground by twisting language and using Political Correctness to invent things you can't say. Here is an example. My views attract the accusation of 'homophobe' which is designed to suggest my view is extreme and should not be allowed to be aired and certainly not listened to.
Thing is though, I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I find the idea distasteful and unpleasant. The reason for this is that I find women attractive, so I would guess that it would be reasonable, for a reasonable person to find my attitude unsurprising.
Nature, as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox I'm sure would agree, cares nothing for society or human rights, but just sets the parameters for life. To ensure the best result from reproduction, Nature requires animals (humans) to use sex to mix the DNA. So, to careless Nature, homosexuality is not wrong, it is just useless and an evolutionary dead-end. Which is why I always say that all homosexuals are glad their parents weren't.
Sometimes, a chemical imbalance results in a person who does find members of the same sex attractive. Recognising that in the sentient life that humans have, we engage in sexual acts for recreation, not exclusively procreation, perhaps we should not ban same sex, sex.
Marriage is another human construct. It is the union of two people for the best protection of the children of that union. Outrageously, homosexuals cannot have children (though they can buy them) and I'm sure there will be some future activist agitation to make homosexuals believe they are being victimised again.
Society has allowed same sex people to co habit and have 'civil partnerships', nothing else is required. We have to keep a focus on the qualities of the society we have created, to serve real needs, not allow and introduce divisive elements, that are only being promoted by people of malicious intent.
To be brutally honest, we are dealing with choices. When a person becomes 'aware' that they feel they are a girl in a man's body, they seek drugs to assist them with being a 'girl'. They look to surgery to 'improve' their physical condition. All of this we must not be 'judgemental' about, we should allow it as a natural part of their development; we can help them so we should. Well, why then is it 'wrong' to suggest alternative drugs that would make them comfortable as they are, as a man?
No, we get the activists screaming from the rooftops about making victims of these poor people (which is actually exactly what the activists themselves desire and are causing). But it is just a choice and I would suggest, the most obvious one. Again, homosexuality faces the same challenge and the same choices.
If we must accept, apparently, the bludgeoning point of view that the chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality is their right to maintain and just accept they are 'differently sexual' then where does that stop? Animals, children, rapists? Do you not find it strange that, whilst there is no reason to think a bloke who fancies other blokes would also fancy young boys (else why do heterosexual men mange, on the whole to leave young girls alone?), that there is an activist push for ever younger age of consent for boys?
Not forgetting that there are organisations, one of which Harriet Harman used to represent, that sees no reason why sex between adults and children should not be allowed. It is because Left activists are pushing it. It is also why so many politicians of the Left get arrested for child sex offences; they were convinced it was OK by those they associate with.
Homosexuality exists. If they want to seek medical assistance to be heterosexual then that should be a choice they can make, without the vilification that currently attaches to it. If they want to be in a same sex partnership, then so be it, (though it does cause issue with segregation of course, toilets etc) but leave marriage with people who can and do have ambitions for a family.
Who on earth (no pun intended) put this in Cameron's head? It is being pushed by activists no doubt and some of them may be homosexuals, rather than the anarchist ingrates that are behind most of these attacks on Western civilisation (because it is 'capitalist').
First the Left tried to set the battleground by twisting language and using Political Correctness to invent things you can't say. Here is an example. My views attract the accusation of 'homophobe' which is designed to suggest my view is extreme and should not be allowed to be aired and certainly not listened to.
Thing is though, I'm not afraid of homosexuals, I find the idea distasteful and unpleasant. The reason for this is that I find women attractive, so I would guess that it would be reasonable, for a reasonable person to find my attitude unsurprising.
Nature, as Richard Dawkins and Brian Cox I'm sure would agree, cares nothing for society or human rights, but just sets the parameters for life. To ensure the best result from reproduction, Nature requires animals (humans) to use sex to mix the DNA. So, to careless Nature, homosexuality is not wrong, it is just useless and an evolutionary dead-end. Which is why I always say that all homosexuals are glad their parents weren't.
Sometimes, a chemical imbalance results in a person who does find members of the same sex attractive. Recognising that in the sentient life that humans have, we engage in sexual acts for recreation, not exclusively procreation, perhaps we should not ban same sex, sex.
Marriage is another human construct. It is the union of two people for the best protection of the children of that union. Outrageously, homosexuals cannot have children (though they can buy them) and I'm sure there will be some future activist agitation to make homosexuals believe they are being victimised again.
Society has allowed same sex people to co habit and have 'civil partnerships', nothing else is required. We have to keep a focus on the qualities of the society we have created, to serve real needs, not allow and introduce divisive elements, that are only being promoted by people of malicious intent.
To be brutally honest, we are dealing with choices. When a person becomes 'aware' that they feel they are a girl in a man's body, they seek drugs to assist them with being a 'girl'. They look to surgery to 'improve' their physical condition. All of this we must not be 'judgemental' about, we should allow it as a natural part of their development; we can help them so we should. Well, why then is it 'wrong' to suggest alternative drugs that would make them comfortable as they are, as a man?
No, we get the activists screaming from the rooftops about making victims of these poor people (which is actually exactly what the activists themselves desire and are causing). But it is just a choice and I would suggest, the most obvious one. Again, homosexuality faces the same challenge and the same choices.
If we must accept, apparently, the bludgeoning point of view that the chemical imbalance that causes homosexuality is their right to maintain and just accept they are 'differently sexual' then where does that stop? Animals, children, rapists? Do you not find it strange that, whilst there is no reason to think a bloke who fancies other blokes would also fancy young boys (else why do heterosexual men mange, on the whole to leave young girls alone?), that there is an activist push for ever younger age of consent for boys?
Not forgetting that there are organisations, one of which Harriet Harman used to represent, that sees no reason why sex between adults and children should not be allowed. It is because Left activists are pushing it. It is also why so many politicians of the Left get arrested for child sex offences; they were convinced it was OK by those they associate with.
Homosexuality exists. If they want to seek medical assistance to be heterosexual then that should be a choice they can make, without the vilification that currently attaches to it. If they want to be in a same sex partnership, then so be it, (though it does cause issue with segregation of course, toilets etc) but leave marriage with people who can and do have ambitions for a family.
Tuesday, 23 October 2012
Harriet 'Interesting' Harman
Harriet Harman, whom most people would just see as an unpleasant human being, is now turning out to be interesting. By interesting I mean in the same way as suspects become of interest to the police, I mean in a way that most civilised people would 'take an interest'. Interestingly, it has fallen to her to deplore the allegations of sexual abuse now coming out about Jimmy Saville.
You see, Harriet would seem to be a little conflicted here. In the past she has worked for and openly stated that children having sexual relations with adults should only be of concern where it can be proven that the child was harmed. So I guess at best she feels that Saville probably hasn't done anything wrong, herself, personally.
What the Labour Party thinks is another thing; it does seem to attract a lot of paedophiles to its ranks. Perhaps overall they don;t agree with paedophilia, but then, perhaps their definition isn't the same as yours. The Left generally has been pushing for the age of 'consent' to be lowered to 14, though of course they don't believe in consent anyway, just an absence of 'harm'.
Personally, I doubt even that. The Left sees abused children as a price they are willing to pay to help undermine Western, capitalist civilisation. The destruction of the family unit has been key and it was why they supported and cajoled homosexuals to 'demand their rights'. Really, the Left just saw them as useful idiots who could be manipulated to help pervert the structure of our society.
It was the least worst, most acceptable 'adjustment' they could push. The Left have also spoken out that bestiality is just a lifestyle choice too, alongside paedophilia.
I hope the Coalition don't try to soft pedal on this issue. It must expose Harman for what she is, talk openly about her views and see if the Labour party decide to defend her or run and hide its true character.
You see, Harriet would seem to be a little conflicted here. In the past she has worked for and openly stated that children having sexual relations with adults should only be of concern where it can be proven that the child was harmed. So I guess at best she feels that Saville probably hasn't done anything wrong, herself, personally.
What the Labour Party thinks is another thing; it does seem to attract a lot of paedophiles to its ranks. Perhaps overall they don;t agree with paedophilia, but then, perhaps their definition isn't the same as yours. The Left generally has been pushing for the age of 'consent' to be lowered to 14, though of course they don't believe in consent anyway, just an absence of 'harm'.
Personally, I doubt even that. The Left sees abused children as a price they are willing to pay to help undermine Western, capitalist civilisation. The destruction of the family unit has been key and it was why they supported and cajoled homosexuals to 'demand their rights'. Really, the Left just saw them as useful idiots who could be manipulated to help pervert the structure of our society.
It was the least worst, most acceptable 'adjustment' they could push. The Left have also spoken out that bestiality is just a lifestyle choice too, alongside paedophilia.
I hope the Coalition don't try to soft pedal on this issue. It must expose Harman for what she is, talk openly about her views and see if the Labour party decide to defend her or run and hide its true character.
Thursday, 11 August 2011
Harriet 'Morlock' Harman
The comic book character (surely no one could really be that evil?), Harriet Harm wreaks destruction across all of her empire. She really seems to believe that rewarding bad behaviour helps to control it and only when we punish bad behaviour will we get riots. Or maybe it is because only by maintaining an uneducated, immobile, dependent mass can the sickness in her head be voted for.
Whilst this odious creature, a blight on all our lives with the taxes she demands to maintain her lifestyle and the underclass she promotes, needs votes to hold power she will continue to fund them. And doubtless she does see them as animals, creatures with whom she has no intention of interacting, just stroking them, feeding them but most importantly ensuring they stay caged. She does this through benefits and just as much by ensuring the education system is of no use to them.
Mostly, she encourages them to absent themselves, by ensuring there is no sanction for bad behaviour, but also by dumbing down the curriculum so they are unemployable even if they try. Application and ambition must not succeed under her rule, that might grow to threaten the 'Queen'. Social mobility under Labour ground to a halt for the very reason that it would threaten Labour's grip on power.
There doubtless will always be lost souls, who will prey on their fellows. It has ever been so and you must believe by her deeds when privileged, that The Harm would be one too. Is one now, but in a different more hidden manner. However, most of Labour's 'disadvantaged' are only disadvantaged because of New Labour. They have been quite deliberately denied opportunity for the political benefit of people such as The Harm.
They have never been shown the satisfaction of a job well done, the feeling of worth at being able to buy something with money earned, to be able to look at something and say with pride 'I did that'. Unfortunately, as anyone knows who cares for their children, this involves compulsion, at least in the early days. It involves commitment. Children will always seek the easy way out and by giving in, by setting no boundaries, by requiring nothing of them we ultimately destroy them. Society gets riots and looting. But just as the child still runs to mother for sweets, so Harman doles out the benefits to get the votes.
Whilst this odious creature, a blight on all our lives with the taxes she demands to maintain her lifestyle and the underclass she promotes, needs votes to hold power she will continue to fund them. And doubtless she does see them as animals, creatures with whom she has no intention of interacting, just stroking them, feeding them but most importantly ensuring they stay caged. She does this through benefits and just as much by ensuring the education system is of no use to them.
Mostly, she encourages them to absent themselves, by ensuring there is no sanction for bad behaviour, but also by dumbing down the curriculum so they are unemployable even if they try. Application and ambition must not succeed under her rule, that might grow to threaten the 'Queen'. Social mobility under Labour ground to a halt for the very reason that it would threaten Labour's grip on power.
There doubtless will always be lost souls, who will prey on their fellows. It has ever been so and you must believe by her deeds when privileged, that The Harm would be one too. Is one now, but in a different more hidden manner. However, most of Labour's 'disadvantaged' are only disadvantaged because of New Labour. They have been quite deliberately denied opportunity for the political benefit of people such as The Harm.
They have never been shown the satisfaction of a job well done, the feeling of worth at being able to buy something with money earned, to be able to look at something and say with pride 'I did that'. Unfortunately, as anyone knows who cares for their children, this involves compulsion, at least in the early days. It involves commitment. Children will always seek the easy way out and by giving in, by setting no boundaries, by requiring nothing of them we ultimately destroy them. Society gets riots and looting. But just as the child still runs to mother for sweets, so Harman doles out the benefits to get the votes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)