Why is Harriet Harman allowed in the Labour party?

There is an elephant in the room. Well, quite afew as it happens. The time is long overdue whereby we escort these bloated dishonourable creatures back to the wild where they belong. I speak of course of the Blairite clinger ons and licentious New Left student trendies who never grew up (one and the same thing, of course).

I only formally joined the Labour Party (though I have been a proud Trade Unionist my entire working life) when New Labour died and sufficient numbers of these creeps and their influence had diminshed. As a trade union delegate said to Kinnock post Ed Miliband’s victory – “Neil, we’ve got our party back.” But on to the meat of the matter. The despicable few who remain.

The Daily Mail leads with a story concerning Harriet Harman, Patrician Hewitt and the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). But this and the disgusting actions of the so-called National Council for ‘Civil Liberties’ is old news. Admittedly I have only known about this since last year but still, I was a child myself when these events were unfolding and so apparently a legitamate fuckable object for Harman & co who believed (and as far as we know still do) that paedophilia is a genuine ‘sexuality’ and demanding the stigma attached to the raping of children removed. The point here is why are the mainstream media bringing all this up now? Because they know so little can be done about it? Harman (rightly described by Lord Glasman as “everything that is wrong with modern Labour”) and Hewitt (who warmly sang the praises of PIE as a “a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children”) are not in a government Cabinet, the latter is not even resident in the UK. These headlines should have been ran at the time. And could have easily, (The Mail did abit in 2006 but not enough, and again too little too late). Why were they not?

And why is Harriet Harman even allowed in the Labour party? Many activists over the years have been expelled for far less a crime than being a pro-active supporter of nonces. These Blairite ultras and New Left creeps who campaign not for worker’s rights but paedo’s rights must be chucked out in the gutter where they belong. Their concerns are not wages, jobs, housing or the cost of living but rather to totally abolish the age of consent, decriminalise incest, water down child pornography laws, celebrate promiscuity and adultery, willfully destroy the married family and put in place insidious compulsory sex ‘education’ to younger and ever younger children. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563377/Now-say-sorry-Ex-Yard-chief-calls-Labour-trio-admit-backing-paedophilia-huge-mistake.html). They are not even remotely true Labour. They are certainly not culturally British. They have to go if we are to win a majority. But why have they ever been permitted in the first place?

I should of course point out that a ‘spokesperson’ for super-rich Harman denies all the claims. (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/23/harriet-harman-patricia-hewitt-pie-nccl-paedophile-claims). All these posh libertine radicals have paid slaves who even speak for them it seems. Where are the spokes people for victims of child abuse who Harman’s criminal sex group outrageously claimed were often “consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved.”? Kick this fucking dog out our party. Now. Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty has apologised for her past connection with the pro-paedo sect but Harman refuses to even comment. (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2562518/The-truth-Labour-apologists-paedophilia-Police-probe-child-sex-group-linked-party-officials-wake-Savile.html).

“The group’s members did not present themselves as child abusers but as ‘child lovers’ keen to ‘liberate’ children from sexual ‘repression’.” This says it all. The Laissez-faire permissive liberal cult of the New Left taken to it’s logical conclusion. Utter scum. But those who worship at the alter of sexual identity ‘politics’ are, ironically the ones who know nothing of the historic traditions and genuine identity of our Labour party and movement. These same New Left, Blairite, Nu-Feminist and extreme liberal elements are odiously worse than any dogmatic Militant scouse council could ever be. And yet they have remained active members. These people disgrace and genuinely despise our Trade Union structure and working class membership just as they openly mock our Christian contemplation and ethical character and considerations. These are the same people who almost ruined the party under Anthony Blair and they will ruin our chances of a majority in 2015. Why are they tolerated by the leadership? And how could a vacuous lowlife like Harman ever ascend to Deputy Leader? Nothing less than permanent expulsion will suffice. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Not to mention while we have these immoral vermin running amok and ruining the traditional Worker’s movement we also have their weak lackeys such as Luciana Berger (Blair’s son’s ex) putting through authoritarian and useless measure such as policing smoking in their own cars. Such unworkable patronising and waste of time policies are to be expected from such middle-class air heads who spend their parliamentary careers making impassioned speeches in defence of MPs ‘tweeting’  in the commons. She supports the Government funding of homeopathy. If that doesn’t say it all I don’t know what does. Oh wait, her being parachuted in to her seat while knowing nothing of Hillsborough does. Shameful. The party need to be rid of the New Left liberal swine and stop putting forward useless careerists like Berger while we’re at it. If we cannot get our own house in order how can we expect to be fit to Govern? On the subject of Harman and co David Lindsay summed it up perfectly a while back (see link at end for full piece):”Peter Tatchell, who was on The Moral Maze only a few hours ago, would lower the age of consent to 14 and thus legalise almost every act of which any Catholic priest has ever been so much as accused, wrote in The Guardian (26th June 1997) that: “The positive nature of some child-adult relations is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of 9 to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful. The Guardian printed that. In 2010, David Cameron offered Tatchell a peerage. A seat in the House of Lords. In 1983, Michael Foot had refused to endorse Peter Tatchell as a candidate for the House of Commons. But in 2010, David Cameron offered Peter Tatchell a seat in the House of Lords.For many years, the recommended reading for postgraduate students of Criminology at the University of Cambridge included the 1980 book Paedophilia: The Radical Case, by Tom O’Carroll, chairman of the Paedophile Information Exchange, whose 1981 conviction for conspiracy to corrupt public morals through the contacts section of that organisation’s magazine was attacked a year later in the journal of the National Council for Civil Liberties by O’Carroll’s barrister, Peter Thornton, who is now a Queen’s Counsel and a senior circuit judge.

Stephen Fry’s books, The Liar and The Hippopotamus, glorify sex between men and teenage boys, exactly the acts that have brought scandal on the Catholic Church. Germaine Greer’s The Boy is a celebration of the sexual fetishisation of the adolescent male both by men and by women.In The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins describes having been sexually abused as a child as “an embarrassing but otherwise harmless experience”. Philip Pullman’s famous trilogy concludes with sexual intercourse between two children aged about 12, and he has repeatedly denounced the absence of sexual content in the Narnia novels. Geoffrey Robertson QC made his name defending the Schoolkids’ Edition of Oz, while his wife, Katthy Lette, made hers writing explicit depictions of teenage sex. There are those who perennially rush to defend and to laud Roman Polanski. There is Internet pornography, which is the principal, and highly commercial, sexual abuse of teenage boys in the world today. The war in Afghanistan is a war in defence of the endemic abuse of boys, an abuse to which, whatever else may be said of “the Taliban”, they were very actively opposed and not without success in seeking to eradicate, whereas the regime that we have installed in their place actively colludes in it as surely as in the heroin trade.And then there are the numerous Social Services Departments that ran homes where at the same time as the Church was hushing up sex between men and teenage boys on the part of a small number of priests – and thus, however imperfectly, indicating disapproval of it – such behaviour was absolutely endemic, with major figures in that world publishing academic studies, used for many years in the training of social workers, which presented it as positively beneficial to both parties and therefore actively to be encouraged. Clearly, that became the same view of girls. We now see the consequences.

Among many, many, many others.

Not least, the sadly deceased Margaret Thatcher, who spent every New Year’s Eve of her Premiership with Jimmy Savile, and who arranged knighthoods for him, for Peter Morrison (her closest political aide), for Laurens van der Post, and for Cyril Smith, but who fought Victoria Gillick through the courts, thereby establishing a de facto age of consent of 13 or younger without ever bothering to trouble Parliament to approve it.

The average age of first intercourse fell horrifically during the 1980s, although it went back up under the last Labour Government. It is now down again, under a Government drawn overwhelmingly from the social milieu that has always become sexually active earlier than any other.

What’s that you say? They do not purport to be moral authorities? Really? Oh, yes, they do. As we see at the UN.” (http://davidaslindsay.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/rights.html)

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Why is Harriet Harman allowed in the Labour party?

  1. Pingback: Thatcher Gov’t funded PIE | rail replacement service

Comments are closed.