Thatcher -surely last nail in her coffin

6 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
With your quite ridiculous comments you are simply showing your self up !!

Will you still support/vote Labour when reading the below website, dedicated to Labour and even for the most hardy of readers it's a pretty gruesome read/list.

Will you?

6 Feb 2015

Quote by Toots

With your quite ridiculous comments you are simply showing your self up !!

Will you still support/vote Labour when reading the below website, dedicated to Labour and even for the most hardy of readers it's a pretty gruesome read/list.

Will you?
I unreservedly condemn all the people involved and have no hesitation in doing so.....(please note this is something you have failed to say you will do !!! For the 6th time.)
Please also note once involvement was found....no cover up was made....no attempt by the Labour Party to hide the facts. This is also true of all the main parties NOW. their was no attempt to cover up by the Lib Dems when the details of Cyril Smith came out...and indeed there is no attempt by the current Tory party to cover up. The fact they have set up a independent enquiry is fact to that.
Please see link below...it happens in every party...oh..surprise surpise including the Tory party....its only when it is covered up, and hidden, that I have a concern with the party they belonged to !!

yes....your silence is deafening !!!

6 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
I unreservedly condemn all the people involved and have no hesitation in doing so.....(please note this is something you have failed to say you will do !!! For the 6th time.)

How magnanomous but altogether not what was asked.

Quote by deancannock
Please also note once involvement was found....no cover up was made....no attempt by the Labour Party to hide the facts

On which instance on the link I provided in my last post are you referring to re 'no cover up was made'?
But Labour not covering up?

In early 2003, British police began to close in on some top suspects in the Operation Ore investigation, including senior members of Blair's government.
However, Blair issued a D-Notice, resulting in a gag order on the press from publishing any details of the investigation.
or in another instance
The Sunday Times is reported to have obtained an FBI list of Labour MPs who have used credit cards to pay for internet child pornography, and Blair has responded by imposing a massive news blackout, failing however to stop the arrest of one of his most important aides, Phillip Lyon.
You must be proud when you vote Labour

6 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
Read back through the thread. I've already answered that question previously.

Gone back through all 6 pages....I can plenty of times you have sought to distract from that question...but no where that you have answered it !! Nearest you came is when you said as Mrs Thatcher was dead she can't be found guilty. I'm sorry but she can....if documents arise that show she knew and choose to do nothing and ignore, then she is guilty. Jimmy Saville is dead.....but I can't see to many people calling him innocent. Cyril Smith is dead....but can't see many people calling him innocent.
Simple enough question....If it is found by a totally independent enquiry, now headed up up, by a judge from new Zealand, with no links to nay party or any other British establishment, that a ring operated within Westminster ...will you openly condemn the people involved, and anyone involved with a cover up ??
If it is proven that a ring operated in Westminster them I'm sure everyone will condemn those involved. The issue here however, is that you are accusing Thatcher of personally covering up such a thing. as I have said before, you want to believe this is true because of your hatred for Thatcher. I have previously answered you that I would rather wait and see the outcome an enquiry before publicly condemning anyone.
You still haven't answered as to why he wasn't prosecuted in 1978 when it was Labour in power.
And please, if you're going to quote me, have the courtesy to quote me in full. That way you don't misrepresent my words.
To answer your question..see I do !!! The reason he wasn't prosecuted was because there was not enough evidence at the time and the police issued a caution . At no time was this brought to the attention of the government at that time !! In 1980 there was enough evidence, and it was brought to the attention of the government, as he had risen to a position, which it felt could compromise secret information. Did you really need me to tell you that as its information easily found !!
Any yes I am saying I believe Mrs Thatcher knew of a Westminster ring and she choose to keep quiet, so as to protect her friends, and because some of those people involved, were in her cabinet.
Please note.. I said same sort of things about Jimmy Saville as it was starting to break, and people on here said what rubbish. It really doesn't take much to see the weight of information and read between the lines.
I will await the enquiry, which as I said, I now fully respect and trust....and IF a cover up is found I await your unreserved CONDEMNATION...with anticipation !!!
Equally as clearly stated I will unreservedly apologise IF no wrong doing is found !!!
Dean,do you make it up as you go along? You are correct in saying that their wasn't enough evidence to convict Hayman in 1978 but there was no further evidence available in 1980 when it was supposedly brought to the Governments attention. Do you really think that the DPP would not have brought the details of his arrest to the powers that be in 1978?
As for your assertion that by 1980 he had risen to a position where it felt he could compromise secret information, he retired from public life in 1974! I'm aware that the Guardian has stated that he worked for MI6 after that date but it would appear that there is no evidence to support that claim.

6 Feb 2015

lol...Toots is that honest the best you can do..the peoples community post..lol laughable....if he had every newspaper in the land would have reported it. Please have some credabilty. If there was evidence then just as now an enquiry would have been set up. Really..it is laughable .
7th time....you not answered the question asked of you.....speaks volumes
Max...as if M16 give out list of people who have or do work there... smile

6 Feb 2015

So provide some evidence to support your claim!

7 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
So provide some evidence to support your claim!

Now you've done it.

7 Feb 2015

Quote by Toots
So provide some evidence to support your claim!

Now you've done it.
The silence is deafening........

7 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
@dean
and PIE? Hariett Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt et al calling for sex with 12 year olds to be made legal?
Or is it one rule for Labourites and another for Conservatives in your little wonderworld of Tom Watson, the caped Westminster crusader

please show where any politician of any colour has asked for sex with 12 years olds to made legal....you really are talking total rubbish GNV.
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1976 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.

Is GNV talking rubbish?

7 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
@dean
and PIE? Hariett Harman, Jack Dromey, Patricia Hewitt et al calling for sex with 12 year olds to be made legal?
Or is it one rule for Labourites and another for Conservatives in your little wonderworld of Tom Watson, the caped Westminster crusader

please show where any politician of any colour has asked for sex with 12 years olds to made legal....you really are talking total rubbish GNV.
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1996 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.
Is GNV talking rubbish?
It's over 40 years ago Max, so in dean's little world of left wing fantasy, it doesn't exist :lol2:

7 Feb 2015

Quote by GnV
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1996 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.
Is GNV talking rubbish?

It's over 40 years ago Max, so in dean's little world of left wing fantasy, it doesn't exist :lol2:
Yeah you both are, as you are distorting the truth and the timeline.
PIE was affiliated in February 1976, prior to Dromey being elected to chairman, as soon as he was he had them thrown out, that was in April 1976...8 weeks after. As he never supported their agenda.
The NCCL's press release was about dropping the age of consent for consenting minors. At the time and still is illegal for anyone to have sex under the age of 16. So 2 x 15 year olds are commiting an offence should they do so. The press release was asking for the consent to be dropped to 14 years of age IF both practioners were the same age! Thereby decriminalising something which we know goes on. There was no move by the NCCL to advocate PIE's twisted logic and view.
Harriet Harman joined NCCL in 1978, 2 years after the PIE fiasco. How does that make her a supporter?
Dromey was never a supporter and defeated their membership.

7 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Harriet Harman joined NCCL in 1978, 2 years after the PIE fiasco. How does that make her a supporter?

I guess if she went to work for the NCCL whilst PIE were affiliated it then that could be seen as supportive of PIE...Ignorance is no defence so maybe not direct support but at the very best an error of judgement.
I guess her claim surrounding the Protection of Children Bill may also put her in a bad light as highlighted below.

The Mail also focused on the roles of the three Labour politicians, and published new claims last week. It said Miss Harman - the Council’s legal officer in 1978 until 1982 - wrote a briefing paper on the Protection of Children Bill, which sought to ban child pornography
Miss Harman had claimed such a law would “increase censorship” and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject had suffered.
Source:

or further mutterings

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Harriet Harman was legal officer of the National Council for Civil Liberties ( now Liberty) and her husband chaired the NCCL in the 70's. Patricia Hewitt who was later a cabinet minister was its general secretary. The Information Exchange was affiliated to the NCCL. In 1996 the NCCL issued a press release calling for the lowering of the age of consent to 14.
Is GNV talking rubbish?

It's over 40 years ago Max, so in dean's little world of left wing fantasy, it doesn't exist :lol2:
Yeah you both are, as you are distorting the truth and the timeline.
PIE was affiliated in February 1976, prior to Dromey being elected to chairman, as soon as he was he had them thrown out, that was in April 1976...8 weeks after. As he never supported their agenda.
The NCCL's press release was about dropping the age of consent for consenting minors. At the time and still is illegal for anyone to have sex under the age of 16. So 2 x 15 year olds are commiting an offence should they do so. The press release was asking for the consent to be dropped to 14 years of age IF both practioners were the same age! Thereby decriminalising something which we know goes on. There was no move by the NCCL to advocate PIE's twisted logic and view.
Harriet Harman joined NCCL in 1978, 2 years after the PIE fiasco. How does that make her a supporter?
Dromey was never a supporter and defeated their membership.
PIE was not kicked out of the NCCL until 1983, 7 years after the appointment of Dromey as Chairman ( although he had been on the executive since 1970) and 5 after the appointment of Harman. The press release was not about dropping the age of consent for minors, it was about dropping the age of consent to 14, with special provisions where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over the age of 10 could be proved. It also included a call to legalise .
Patricia Hewitt's name was on the press release.
You need to be sure of your facts before you accuse others of distorting the truth.
PS God knows what's happened to the quotes in this post!

8 Feb 2015

Toots
The NCCL was a campaigner for civil liberties and therefore supported anyones right to free speech. Back in the 70's there was a lot of movement for repressive and draconian laws to be repealed and I can see how some groups would hijack legitimate causes like illegality of being a practicing homosexual for their own nefarious ends. Which is basically what PIE did. NCCL had over a 1000 affiliate groups, of which it was easy to gain. You paid your £15 and gained your affiliate status. Should we ban the BNP? EDL? or maybe the Socialist parties? religious parties?
So long as the group had committed no crime then we have to defend their right to be heard. If we don't agree with it then we fight their cause, not ban the group!
Max
You are quite correct their affiliate was removed in 1983, I should have done my homework correctly and chosen my choice of words better (must of been the red wine) To whit; whilst being a member of an executive committee does not mean that one agrees with all decisions. Being a democratic group sees motions carried that sometimes one doesnt agree with.
I should have said that Dromey defeated their motion to be heard within 8 weeks of his taking the chairmanship. So I dont see him supporting them at all.
Back on topic though, coverups by all governments are rife. We only get to hear what they (Government) want us to hear. This is either to suit them staying in power or for control.
It is a journalists duty to expose these coverups so we the people can make informed decisions about which bunch of idiots to put in power.
So yes, I believe Thatcher was complicit, but then they all are to a lesser or greater degree.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by R_T
So yes, I believe Thatcher was complicit

complicit

Examples
adjective
to be involved in an illegal or questionable act, especially with others; having complicity.
Bit strong there R_T. What are you suggesting?

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
Toots
The NCCL was a campaigner for civil liberties and therefore supported anyones right to free speech. Back in the 70's there was a lot of movement for repressive and draconian laws to be repealed and I can see how some groups would hijack legitimate causes like illegality of being a practicing homosexual for their own nefarious ends. Which is basically what PIE did. NCCL had over a 1000 affiliate groups, of which it was easy to gain. You paid your £15 and gained your affiliate status. Should we ban the BNP? EDL? or maybe the Socialist parties? religious parties?
So long as the group had committed no crime then we have to defend their right to be heard. If we don't agree with it then we fight their cause, not ban the group!
Max
You are quite correct their affiliate was removed in 1983, I should have done my homework correctly and chosen my choice of words better (must of been the red wine) To whit; whilst being a member of an executive committee does not mean that one agrees with all decisions. Being a democratic group sees motions carried that sometimes one doesnt agree with.
I should have said that Dromey defeated their motion to be heard within 8 weeks of his taking the chairmanship. So I dont see him supporting them at all.
Back on topic though, coverups by all governments are rife. We only get to hear what they (Government) want us to hear. This is either to suit them staying in power or for control.
It is a journalists duty to expose these coverups so we the people can make informed decisions about which bunch of idiots to put in power.
So yes, I believe Thatcher was complicit, but then they all are to a lesser or greater degree.

All we have is Domey's word after the event. You really can't compare what the PIE stood for against the likes of the EDL or religious groups. What the PIE stood for was equally as vile then as it is now and Domey being on the executive must have known what it stood for. If he was so against them and defeated their motion why was the PIE able to continue to be affiliated to the NCCL for the duration of Domey's chairmanship and for another 4 years thereafter?

I think the above article hits the nail squarely on the head

8 Feb 2015

I am suggesting G, that Thatcher held sway on internal affairs and let us lesser mortals hear what she and her ilk thought was worthy of us. Therefore with what has come to light, which is questionable, she was complicit.
Max, freedom of speech, just because you dont like what some groups campaign for doesn't mean that their voices should be muted. That approach is a very slippery slope. Should they engage in any illegal acts then of course throw the book at them, but not for writing about them or engagement in campaigning! But since that was the 70's things were very different back then ala Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter et al.
If thats the case then maybe all copies of Anais Nin's "The Delta of Venus" should be burnt and everyone who has ever read it castigated in public, along with Nabokov's " " or "My Secret Life, diary of an Edwardian Gentleman" and maybe even the Bible.

8 Feb 2015

Back to original topic, she's no longer with us
thanks for reminding us of that
:thumbup:

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I am suggesting G, that Thatcher held sway on internal affairs and let us lesser mortals hear what she and her ilk thought was worthy of us. Therefore with what has come to light, which is questionable, she was complicit.
Max, freedom of speech, just because you dont like what some groups campaign for doesn't mean that their voices should be muted. That approach is a very slippery slope. Should they engage in any illegal acts then of course throw the book at them, but not for writing about them or engagement in campaigning! But since that was the 70's things were very different back then ala Jimmy Saville, Gary Glitter et al.
If thats the case then maybe all copies of Anais Nin's "The Delta of Venus" should be burnt and everyone who has ever read it castigated in public, along with Nabokov's " " or "My Secret Life, diary of an Edwardian Gentleman" and maybe even the Bible.

So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?
It may have been the 70's but was illegal even then. I'm sure had Saville, Glitter et al made their predilections public, there would have been a massive public backlash and revulsion back then.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.

Quote by Max777
It may have been the 70's but was illegal even then. I'm sure had Saville, Glitter et al made their predilections public, there would have been a massive public backlash and revulsion back then.

There was, hence PIE are no longer an organisation. You can't continually campaign if the greater good is against you. But that does push organisations underground where it is harder to find out what they are up to.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.
I think you'll find its not. Stand on a soapbox and campaign for any of the issues mentioned,not forgetting and you will soon be having your collar felt.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.
I think you'll find its not. Stand on a soapbox and campaign for any of the issues mentioned,not forgetting and you will soon be having your collar felt.
I think you will find their are organisations within the church that advocate against women bishops, that is sexism. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in Homosexuality and advocate such, that it is homophobia, the BNP/EDL campaign...well we don't need to state what that want.
There are folks that wish to bring back capital punishment, in my eyes that is the advocacy of state managed murder, and murder is illegal when I last looked. Does that mean that because its illegal they shouldnt be allowed to?

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
So are you advocating that anyone or any group should be able to campaign for whatever issue they want, however illegal? So it's OK to promote homophobia, racism , sexism?

I think you will find its quite alright to campaign for all of them Max and they openly are, practicing discrimination or abuse in the name of them is totally another thing.
I think you'll find its not. Stand on a soapbox and campaign for any of the issues mentioned,not forgetting and you will soon be having your collar felt.
I think you will find their are organisations within the church that advocate against women bishops, that is sexism. Jehovah Witnesses don't believe in Homosexuality and advocate such, that it is homophobia, the BNP/EDL campaign...well we don't need to state what that want.
There are folks that wish to bring back capital punishment, in my eyes that is the advocacy of state managed murder, and murder is illegal when I last looked. Does that mean that because its illegal they shouldnt be allowed to?
I think you'll find that inciting both racial and homophobic hatred are criminal offences. There is a limit to free speach.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
I think you'll find that inciting both racial and homophobic hatred are criminal offences. There is a limit to free speach.

You added one word to your original statement which has changed the discussion Max.
If you will I can offer two examples of sexism;
"I don't believe men should be members of the Womens Institute"
blatant sexism and discriminatory, but not illegal.
Whereas;
"Men should be castrated and their nads hung in public for wanting to join the Womens Institute"
Hatred...and maybe illegal, if carried out would certainly be so.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Rogue_Trader
I think you'll find that inciting both racial and homophobic hatred are criminal offences. There is a limit to free speach.

You added one word to your original statement which has changed the discussion Max.
If you will I can offer two examples of sexism;
"I don't believe men should be members of the Womens Institute"
blatant sexism and discriminatory, but not illegal.
Whereas;
"Men should be castrated and their nads hung in public for wanting to join the Womens Institute"
Hatred...and maybe illegal, if carried out would certainly be so.
No, I'm merely pointing out that there is a limit to free speach. I wonder how far anyone would get now campaigning on behalf of legalising . By your assertion, they should be free to do so.

8 Feb 2015

Quote by Max777
No, I'm merely pointing out that there is a limit to free speach. I wonder how far anyone would get now campaigning on behalf of legalising . By your assertion, they should be free to do so.

The world is a different place than what it used to be. Members of said organisation being able to actively campaign, whilst Gerry Adams was gagged!
oh how the world has changed, thankfully. the article below makes interesting reading,

15 Feb 2015

Quote by GnV
So provide some evidence to support your claim!

Now you've done it.
The silence is deafening........
Yes... silence is deafening when I ask for people to say IF found guilty by a completely independent enquiry, will you openly condemn the people involved.
just for your information...been away skiing for a week...take it I am allowed to do that !!

15 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
So provide some evidence to support your claim!

Now you've done it.
The silence is deafening........
Yes... silence is deafening when I ask for people to say IF found guilty by a completely independent enquiry, will you openly condemn the people involved.
just for your information...been away skiing for a week...take it I am allowed to do that !!
Been skiing for quite a while now....
Spending the Kids Inheritance flipa

15 Feb 2015

well...as can see you said I went quiet on 7th.....and its now 15th of feb....think I reckon I was away for a week....and having been on here for over 10 years now, I thought..oh damn it, its all downhill from here.....so might as well ski it !!!! smile

16 Feb 2015

Quote by deancannock
well...as can see you said I went quiet on 7th.....and its now 15th of feb....think I reckon I was away for a week....and having been on here for over 10 years now, I thought..oh damn it, its all downhill from here.....so might as well ski it !!!!

but, to what depths will you descend?