www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lobby.html I watched Newsnight last night , and she didn't fare to well. The story still has some way to run.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... lobby.html I watched Newsnight last night , and she didn't fare to well. The story still has some way to run.

It's a Wail story so therefore the truth has nothing to do with it.
It's a typical right wing smear story for fools to believe.

The Daily Mail.....what a surprise !!!

As I quoted elsewhere:



[url=http://zelo-street.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/paedophile-smear-not-good-idea.htmlLink[/url

Tim Fenton is worth following: this was an early story, but he's done more since.

And let's not forget that the gutter-scraping rag in question profits from 'pedo-lite' on its web pages, publishing pictures of underage girls and accompanying them by creepy, sexualising text – calling an eight-year-old child a "leggy beauty", for instance.

[url=http://thevoluptuousmanifesto.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/this-isnt-just-journalism-this-is-daily.htmlMore detail on that – but there are plenty of other reports of it too[/url.

As also mentioned previously, I dislike Harman for a variety of reasons, but this is a smear campaign, pure and simple. And not the first one that Dacre has attempted on Labour in the last few months. The man's a coward and a hypocrite and a bully.

[url=http://www.change.org/petitions/daily-mail-mailonline-stop-the-daily-mail-sexualising-children?recruiter=20921167&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petitionPetition to get the [iMail[/i group to stop sexualising underage girls.[/url

I watched Newsnight and the only thing I came away with was that asking someone 25 times "do you agree it was a good idea to allow paedophiles to become affiliated to your organisation - yes or no"? to someone who doesn't accept she actually did allow paedophiles to become affiliated to her organisation is an excercise in total futility (although if the interviewer had used her ears better instead of her mouth she might have noticed Harmon did actually answer the question but instead she went on to ask it another 15 times).

Interviewers on television often resort to making statements and framing them as yes or no questions. Answering yes or no to these questions gives acceptance that the statement is correct in the first place - which it may well not be. Not answering makes it look like you are a squirmy liar unable to answer a "straight" question.

The modern TV interviewer is incapable of thinking and formulating questions during an interview based on information revealed during the interview so they have their confirmatory (to confirm their version of the "facts"icon_wink.gif, closed questions ready to go before they begin.
This is why I find it so difficult to like politicians (who are on complete defence mode from the off) or the people on TV who interview them.

But it's okay: it's all to do with peados and many seem to 'think' that there's a case to answer.

Which is an illustration of how, no matter how crass and hypocritical and downright dishonest the [iDaily Mail[/i is, there are always people who are dumb enough to believe it because it suits their knee-jerking stupidity.

Patricia Hewitt has now apologised for 'naivety'.

It will be interesting to see if the papers apologise for knowing about Jimmy Savile and saying nowt. I first heard about Savile from a [iDaily Mail[/i journalist who had previously been at the [iTelegraph[/i. That was around 1993.

He noted that Savile 'had the keys to enough cupboards' of other people to protect himself.

Read into that what you will, but do not, for a minute, get suckered into the left=pedo bolløcks.

One could, for instance, ask, why Leon Brittan, when home secretary, declined the chance to outlaw PIE. Or even why Margaret Thatcher entertained Jimmy Savile so often at Chequers, if you want play the tribal politics game.