Labour Crusties In A Pickle Over PIE

[Mecky]

Not like the DM to publish an unfounded article like that is it?

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

Mmmmm. Like Thatcher's allegiances with Saville?

 

Anyway, back to the OP. There should be further investigations in to the matter.

 

Yeah, I wonder why the DM didn't mention that?

[salsafan]

I could post links to a number of notable cases where women have done

exactly that but I can't be bothered.

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 12:19 ----------

 

 

Are you suggesting that people without children shouldn't be allowed to be MP's? Are you off your head?

Do you have any empathy at all ? I hope that you actually respect me as a woman, and see my words and intent as one that is upholding the actual moral right here, than what you seemingly READ into my actual words as literal.

 

I have read the rest of the newspaper article and I AM LIVID ! Because this is PRECISELY what and why "Britain" has gone absolutely Peter Tong in its stupid politics, and the way you even challenge me is exactly the idiotic behaviour that SO many youngsters get confused over, especially by your action to challenge me when I am trying to support the side of the child's innocence here. Do you even realise what it is that you are advocating here by challenging my point? You really are from a certain era and times. Cos you lack empathy. You are NOT these politicians, and this IS a currents affair topic that we are talking about AS bystanders and READERS or the newspaper article.

 

People who has not lived through a certain life experiences can never know or to understand why something may not work or be a certain way. I will come back to you with my comments on the subject that this newspaper is talking of. I have absolutely no clue why you are being antagonistic about "but other women do this" (and does that make it alright? NO !)

[I1L2T3]

Not like the DM to publish an unfounded article like that is it?

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

 

Yeah, I wonder why the DM didn't mention that?

 

Or this:

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tory-paedophile-scanda

[Halibut]

Do you have any empathy at all ? I hope that you actually respect me as a woman, and see my words and intent as one that is upholding the actual moral right here, than what you seemingly READ into my actual words as literal.

 

I have read the rest of the newspaper article and I AM LIVID ! Because this is PRECISELY what and why "Britain" has gone absolutely Peter Tong in its stupid politics, and the way you even challenge me is exactly the idiotic behaviour that SO many youngsters get confused over, especially by your action to challenge me when I am trying to support the side of the child's innocence here. Do you even realise what it is that you are advocating here by challenging my point? You really are from a certain era and times. Cos you lack empathy. You are NOT these politicians, and this IS a currents affair topic that we are talking about AS bystanders and READERS or the newspaper article.

 

People who has not lived through a certain life experiences can never know or to understand why something may not work or be a certain way. I will come back to you with my comments on the subject that this newspaper is talking of. I have absolutely no clue why you are being antagonistic about "but other women do this" (and does that make it alright? NO !)

 

Were you suggesting that people without children shouldn't be allowed to be MP's (or other positions of power) though?

[geared]

Or this:

 

http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/11/06/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-tory-paedophile-scanda

 

Wasn't there a flap a little while ago about that??

 

Someone named a lord, got it wrong and has been dragged through the courts for it??

[alchresearch]

This PIE business is nothing new. The Telegraph covered it in 2012:

 

Jimmy Savile: Labour faces embarrassment over former child sex claims

 

Labour faces embarrassment over its calls for a wide-ranging inquiry into Jimmy Savile as senior party figures have previously called for the relaxation of child sex laws.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/jimmy-savile/9614516/Jimmy-Savile-Labour-faces-embarrassment-over-former-child-sex-claims.html

[salsafan]

I read the whole article, do you know what this is ? This is BS. This is one of those typical example of how "free" the media is in this country and such strong smearing can actually be publicised and "deduced" as a link.

 

As much as the politicians were part of the NCCL, and they held roles. How can that then be extended to what the policies are for PIE ? Or what individual members of PIE were doing ? I have read some of the comments publicised here.

 

On page six of the document it is argued that 'a person aged 14 or over should be legally capable of giving consent' and the age of sexual consent cut to ten 'if the child understood the nature of the act'

 

Can I just say that the above is no different to what I read when I was 16 in a sex ed legal guidance book? I was encouraged to search for information if I was going to make an adult decision on sexual relationships, and I remember reading about this, and how many of my peers were actually breaking the law. Most parents then overlooked their own roles, and say "kids will do what they like", (even if my child is breaking the law, I cannot stop her) kind of attitude. There is a strong emphasis on not breaking up the puppy love relationship between two minors, and maybe this difference in age allowed an older person to actually legally have sex as a loophole by law. This is immoral, and this is exactly why Britain as a supposed "great" country, does not even let such loophole be challenged and closed off ?

 

A lot of parents in my schools were in a way not trying to alarm an individual such that, they even remove the entire legal responsibility with it. All I recall my experiences were that, I was encouraged to learn about the law, and learn to respect the individual too. Why did I lose friends when I was at school, this could be why. Cos I did not fold under peer pressure. In comparison to other moms who said "yes, we did this behind a bike shed", and "yes, I did this too", and "this is why I see it as a normal now for my child". When I relate that back to my mother, it was a case of "you are no longer going to be friends with this girl!" She was right. As people influences other people, and it is no wonder that some mothers are like strong mothering Hen protecting their own child's innocence and make them learn things the right way but to shield them from harm when they can, and could.

 

It is actually quite funny looking back because the whole "sexual liberation" thing really took its toll and face onto the "artistic" scene, as well as the public scene. Why do some older people revere the likes of tv programmes like "Carry On" ? Cos it was a way to represent missing time or period of their own lives ? This kind of sexualisation appeared publically, and why should those artists are now seen as innocent or naive when really they were so egotistic to think that they were SO repressed such that they need to publicise this aspect of themselves or their lives ?

 

To be honest, I have not read what PIE is about, and how Dailymail is SO arrogant now to link one thing with another and brainwash and publicise this kind of disgusting article once again. Which is their trademark. If I was the editor, of DM, I would kick ass right now.

 

Family-friendly newspaper ? What tosh ! As much as sometimes they write good decent articles, this one truly stinks.

 

It also is encouraging those who "name and shame" and go beyond their own responsibility too. As in, why is the police now getting involved, so that the perception of "the force is fighting back to the politicians" after the recent kind of "Dugguan" issue or that other "Manchester Police force" issue. It is like, those incidences happened, but then the newspaper wants to calm the public's anger and publish something else to appease their tempers to begin with.

 

This is why I sometimes do not read newspapers, cos there is an awful lot of stupid manipulation going on.

 

 

I would be truly concerned as to why the newspaper picked this angle and kick up a big fuss and link it this way, than to report factual evidences and context. It stinks. This is also one of those great examples why the reputation of the UK is so bad, and we look like morons cos we are arguing over even idiotic cases like this as if "Jimmy Saville had a right", and "our politicians supported this", when in reality, it was NOT the case !

Edited February 20, 2014 by salsafan

[Halibut]

I read the whole article, do you know what this is ? This is BS. This is one of those typical example of how "free" the media is in this country and such strong smearing can actually be publicised and "deduced" as a link.

 

As much as the politicians were part of the NCCL, and they held roles. How can that then be extended to what the policies are for PIE ? Or what individual members of PIE were doing ? I have read some of the comments publicised here.

 

 

 

Can I just say that the above is no different to what I read when I was 16 in a sex ed legal guidance book? I was encouraged to search for information if I was going to make an adult decision on sexual relationships, and I remember reading about this, and how many of my peers were actually breaking the law. Most parents then overlooked their own roles, and say "kids will do what they like", (even if my child is breaking the law, I cannot stop her) kind of attitude. There is a strong emphasis on not breaking up the puppy love relationship between two minors, and maybe this difference in age allowed an older person to actually legally have sex as a loophole by law. This is immoral, and this is exactly why Britain as a supposed "great" country, does not even let such loophole be challenged and closed off ?

 

A lot of parents in my schools were in a way not trying to alarm an individual such that, they even remove the entire legal responsibility with it. All I recall my experiences were that, I was encouraged to learn about the law, and learn to respect the individual too. Why did I lose friends when I was at school, this could be why. Cos I did not fold under peer pressure. In comparison to other moms who said "yes, we did this behind a bike shed", and "yes, I did this too", and "this is why I see it as a normal now for my child". When I relate that back to my mother, it was a case of "you are no longer going to be friends with this girl!" She was right. As people influences other people, and it is no wonder that some mothers are like strong mothering Hen protecting their own child's innocence and make them learn things the right way but to shield them from harm when they can, and could.

 

It is actually quite funny looking back because the whole "sexual liberation" thing really took its toll and face onto the "artistic" scene, as well as the public scene. Why do some older people revere the likes of tv programmes like "Carry On" ? Cos it was a way to represent missing time or period of their own lives ? This kind of sexualisation appeared publically, and why should those artists are now seen as innocent or naive when really they were so egotistic to think that they were SO repressed such that they need to publicise this aspect of themselves or their lives ?

 

To be honest, I have not read what PIE is about, and how Dailymail is SO arrogant now to link one thing with another and brainwash and publicise this kind of disgusting article once again. Which is their trademark. If I was the editor, of DM, I would kick ass right now.

 

Family-friendly newspaper ? What tosh ! As much as sometimes they write good decent articles, this one truly stinks.

 

It also is encouraging those who "name and shame" and go beyond their own responsibility too. As in, why is the police now getting involved, so that the perception of "the force is fighting back to the politicians" after the recent kind of "Dugguan" issue or that other "Manchester Police force" issue. It is like, those incidences happened, but then the newspaper wants to calm the public's anger and publish something else to appease their tempers to begin with.

 

This is why I sometimes do not read newspapers, cos there is an awful lot of stupid manipulation going on.

 

 

I would be truly concerned as to why the newspaper picked this angle and kick up a big fuss and link it this way, than to report factual evidences and context. It stinks. This is also one of those great examples why the reputation of the UK is so bad, and we look like morons cos we are arguing over even idiotic cases like this as if "Jimmy Saville had a right", and "our politicians supported this", when in reality, it was NOT the case !

 

It's really hard to work out what you actually mean, or even if you know what you mean.

[Cyclone]

Do you have any empathy at all ? I hope that you actually respect me as a woman, and see my words and intent as one that is upholding the actual moral right here, than what you seemingly READ into my actual words as literal.

 

I have read the rest of the newspaper article and I AM LIVID ! Because this is PRECISELY what and why "Britain" has gone absolutely Peter Tong in its stupid politics, and the way you even challenge me is exactly the idiotic behaviour that SO many youngsters get confused over, especially by your action to challenge me when I am trying to support the side of the child's innocence here. Do you even realise what it is that you are advocating here by challenging my point? You really are from a certain era and times. Cos you lack empathy. You are NOT these politicians, and this IS a currents affair topic that we are talking about AS bystanders and READERS or the newspaper article.

 

People who has not lived through a certain life experiences can never know or to understand why something may not work or be a certain way. I will come back to you with my comments on the subject that this newspaper is talking of. I have absolutely no clue why you are being antagonistic about "but other women do this" (and does that make it alright? NO !)

 

Is English not your first language? Because you seem to constantly misinterpret other posters and accuse them of supporting a variety of unpleasant things when they call you out for being factually incorrect.

 

Nobody said that it was "alright"[sic] they said that you were wrong when you claimed "women never do this" and you were.

[Guest]

Mmmmm. Like Thatcher's allegiances with Saville?

 

Anyway, back to the OP. There should be further investigations in to the matter.

 

Not like the DM to publish an unfounded article like that is it?

 

---------- Post added 20-02-2014 at 12:52 ----------

 

 

Yeah, I wonder why the DM didn't mention that?

 

I doubt Thatcher new at the time about Saville being a sexual abuser.