Now & Then, Now & Then, Howzabout This Then?

The world is a very different place now thanks to Labour’s new laws that will protect children from sex abuse, says John Humphrys

Let’s see what laws Labour’s Harriet Harman wanted to introduce….. 

Harriet Harman under attack over bid to water down child pornography law

Harriet Harman’s political judgement has been called into question after it emerged that she once advocated the watering down of child pornography laws.


 and updated.

The BBC, especially their prime news programme, must have known that and as soon as Harman spoke up they must have decided not to embarrass her.

Listen to Humphrys as he tries hard to downplay Savile’s actions.



Bookmark the permalink.

37 Responses to Now & Then, Now & Then, Howzabout This Then?

  1. +james says:

    Well done the Telegraph for pointing this out. Now all that is needed is for the Mail, Sun, Sky, ITV and Channel 4, hell even the Mirror to cover the same story.

    1970s + Paedos + Labour + former Deputy Prime Minister = Great Story.


    • lojolondon says:

      Note Eric Joyce MP has recently been caught shagging a 17 year old ‘helper’ – why is the BBC not asking Miliperson and Harperson why he is still a Liebour MP?


      • Ken Hall says:

        That is not illegal. Providing she is of age and the sex was consensual, there is no problem.


        • Guest Who says:

          No problem?
          If you say so?
          1970s + Paedos + Labour + former Deputy Prime Minister = Great Story.
          Interesting therefore what some in the media find to be a great story, and what suddenly our guardians of taste and decorum judge the public need take no interest in.
          Power being held to account-wise.
          Maybe the BBC could unleash the Prescott to add weight to such an argument?
          Questions are being asked… but many being avoided. It must be nice to control the edit suite and broadcast system.


        • Guest Who says:

          Illegality has, as I recall, not been the sole defining parameter in holding power to account.
          Especially by a media estate tasked with and usually keen to ask questions.
          More so during a period when some in senior positions of the establishment appear to feel that droite de segnieur is a toffish activity that still bears consideration.
          Secure in the knowledge that the most powerful media monopoly in the land can be relied upon to handle any PR fallout.
          Funding hypocrisy to this level and extent is proving vexing.


  2. michael holloway says:

    Is Harriet Harman demented ?


    • Pacific Rising says:

      How tactful of John Humphrys to overlook Hattie’s previous.
      It could have caused her great embarrassment if he’d pointed out her breathtaking hypocrisy.
      Very balanced.


    • chrisH says:

      Great article today on the Telegraphs website.
      Apparently this accusation is an “outrageous slur”.
      What more incentive do we need to bring down this hypocrite…come on Rupert-one smug toff head tp be served up on a Guardian please!
      The nation expects!


    • ROBERT BROWN says:

      She is most certainly an example of someone promoted due to her sex and ultra-feminist outlook over any real ability for any government position.


      • jed says:

        Your forgot to mention the family connections. Lord Longford was her uncle. This also explains her obsession with Page 3.


  3. Maturecheese says:

    Don’t hold your breath. Calling a jobsworth WPC a Pleb is far more serious.


  4. David Preiser (USA) says:

    Hmm…a Left-wing organization pushing to relax child pornography laws and lower the age of consent to 14 (with the eventual goal of its abolition entirely), being run by key Labour figures at the same time that rape and sexual abuse of 14 year-old girls was tolerated at the BBC, an organization which, as admitted by ex-DG Thompson, leaned massively to the Left.

    There’s a lesson to be learned there, but I can’t imagine what it is……


  5. Umbongo says:

    I posted this earlier on the Monday Open Thread. It’s probably more appropriate on this one:

    John Humphrys pretend-interrogation of Harman this morning on Today was an exemplar of the “interview as propaganda” species. He didn’t lay a glove on her and, as far as I can assess these cod-discussions, never meant to. Her agenda, as usual, was for far reaching enquiries – or one super-enquiry – to confirm that all men are either rapists or bullies and cannot be trusted alone with themselves, let alone anyone “vulnerable”.
    Humphrys could, of course, have turned the tables on Harman or put her on the back foot – possibly using the notorious BBC all-purpose allegation/question of “some say” – by bringing up the tangled history of the NCCL’s involvement with the Paedophile Information Exchange while Harriet was NCCL’s general secretary. Humphrys declined the opportunity and this star reporter on his 6-figure salary kept strictly to the BBC/Labour agenda (taught I presume at the BBC College of Churnalism) and asked Harriet boringly predictable questions and, guess what, got boringly predictable answers in return.


  6. Earls court says:

    Its about time the BBC was privatised. Sell off to Rupert Murdoch and get him to turn into a UK version of Fox.


    • hippiepooter says:

      So you’re only against BBC bias because its left wing, you dont want it to impartially facilitate democratic debate?


      • Earls court says:

        The BBC and the whole establishment in the west is run by people with a left-wing bias. This is the main reason why civilisation on this planet is heading for a mad max situation.
        I want democratic debate, but the left doesn’t want it. They know if people could express their true feelings in public the left would be finished.


      • lojolondon says:

        No, we are against the BBC because we pay for the BBC and it is supposed to be impartial and it is not!


  7. pounce says:

    The left (To which the bBC belong) really have a lot to ask for. when its a leftwing hero who is caught shagging little kids or raping women that person has done nothing wrong and boy do we hear about how it wrong to point the finger at him.

    Which is why I am not surprised at how the bBC is remaining quiet over this story and instead spending a lot of time and effort in which to play the victim card for how one of their own fixed it for himself to rape lots of children.


  8. chrisH says:

    A disgraceful typical puff piece for Labour.
    None of the usual “context setting” by a Beeb trustie like Easton or Robinson-the Blessed Lady has her words unedited or sneered at, unlike all Tory interviews.
    None of the usual-“oh, and just one more thing” parting shot at the interviewee-”
    “And what of your support for the Paedos Info Exchange-was that your true position, or merely because the NCCL paid you to do it”
    And of course, not a chance that the BBC will be allowed to stand alone in the dock for its evil connivance in scrubbing Saviles trakkie bottoms.
    Which is all that Harman seeks for her seedy fat suit that is the BBC.
    How that vacuous slime mould ever gets her toffee nose into the public purse trough without due scorn from the rest of us , really begs a revolution.
    At least Marie Antoinette suggested that we keep a baker in work-this niece of Longford seems to want us to eat PIE instead-as if Prescott never existed!
    Scum, Scum. scum!


  9. Dave666 says:

    I thought this was a well known thiing. In fact I ythink I put a link to it on here some time ago.
    I would also add when I wrote to Harman when liebour were in goverment I never recieved a reply. It was in connection with a man-hating comment she had made.
    Also shje was my boss when I worked for long did she last in that job? Retorical question.


  10. chrisH says:

    Any chance of an online petition to force “our BBC” to name that new wing of theirs after Mary Whitehouse and not John, “perve” Peel.
    The wondrous Whitehouse had the BBC banged to rights and fully knew their game- truly a Generation Game where only the old, seedy, gay and impotent got “carte blanche” to take their pick of the kids…preferably with “no Pops” either!
    This new sick psyclops who heads the BBC started his Buggins Turn in charge by saying that he wanted more “creativity”.
    Well George , we have seen plenty of what you creeps at the Beeb regard as “creative”-bending kids, sticking them in the sewers of your Horrid Histories and now creatively trying to account for yourselves.
    You are hypocritical tax fiddlers who choose to grab kids…at least Rupert waited until they were adults before sniffing around the laundry basket.
    You are quisling suckups who`d rather lose charities , rather piss on the NHS and mental heath “survivors” ; than stand alone in the dock for grooming kids of Savile, Peel and many others-who you STILL won`t let the police near just yet.
    You danced on the supposed grave of the Church (and the Catholic one especially), as if you were not a thousand times worse…at least the altar boys have got the guarantee that their abusers will get hell…all you gave Saviles victims was an aisle seat, you scum!
    Mary Whitehouse was right all along-and we need her picture up where Saviles once was hung…and we need this prim prophet back to flay the Beeb at every turn!


  11. johnnythefish says:

    (All quiet on the scottnickdez front. Shhhh, the babes are asleep….)


  12. Justin Casey says:

    Old Bill has been telling me off on the Open Thread becouse of what I said regarding Micheal Barrymore another ex BBC employee….


    • Old Bill says:

      I simply pointed out that you ought to look up the meaning of the word “paedophile” before you make any more libelous claims about the former ITV presenter Michael Barrymore.

      You remind me of the ignoramus who sprayed the word “Paedo” on the house of Yvette Cloete because she was a pediatrician at the Royal Gwent Hospital.


  13. Reed says:

    Bloody Joan Bakewell was on the Daily Politics the other day, defending the BBC by saying that it was all just part of ‘the culture of the day’ and not specific to the BBC.

    Sure – EVERYONE in the seventies was sexin’ on the kiddies! It’s just what has happenin’ at the time, man. Leave your hang-ups in suburbia, squares.



  14. Justin Casey says:


    (H)Oh Mo!!! Savilles presenting the medals……..


  15. Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

    Meanwhile, as two independently-chaired investigations take place into the Savile hysteria, nothing is being done about the complicity of South Yorkshire Police in the ‘Pakistani-heritage’ (=Muslim) sex-gangs operating in their midst.
    According to The Times (£) today, confidential documents showed that organised networks of sex offenders were able to operate with virtual impunity in Rotherham for more than a decade. One internal police report from 2010 warned that several hundred girls, most aged from 13 to 16, were being targeted for abuse in South Yorkshire every year.
    MPs asked the Chief Constable why, when Scotland Yard was holding a large-scale inquiry into child-sex crimes allegedly committed by Sir Jimmy Savile, he had failed to order an inquiry into his force’s handling of thousands of alleged crimes against “ordinary girls from South Yorkshire”.

    If only Jimmy Savile had been enriching this country with his multiculturalism, he might have got away with it.


    • joshaw says:

      “…he might have got away with it.”

      But he did.


      • Ken Hall says:

        If he was enriching them with multiculturalism, then the ITV documentary would not have seen the light of day and Savile would still be regarded as a national treasure.


      • DP says:

        Just more of the BBC protecting their favourites* against the scrutiny of the British public. Shows the BBC is scared of the public reaction when the truth comes out.

        *Not sure myself if I was thinking then of pervert BBC employees, or the gang-rapists of the religion the BBC won’t say a critical word about.


    • Sir Arthur Strebe-Grebling says:

      Today we have the answer. South Yorkshire Police would rather send their ‘experts’ on holiday in Greece instead of investigating current Muslim crimes in their own area.


  16. Dave666 says:

    I have noticed a distinct difference in the reporting of Saville’s alledgedpedo acts compared to the “men of asian origin” pedos. Note virtually nil reporting on the the pedos arrested in Oxford. Why bother trying to muddy the waters, we all know exactly who they will be.
    So when their court case starts in January lets just make a mental note of the coverage of Saville & compare with the level of reporting on 30 odd pedos “of asian origin”.


  17. capriole, peter says:

    Tim Walker in the Telegraph a few days ago (7:30AM BST 15 Oct 2012) has the following gem:

    “On Savile, by the way, Fiona Phillips certainly seemed acquainted with the rumours, when, in 2005, she heard on GMTV that Michael Jackson had been acquitted of child sex charges. “Well, that’s good news for Jimmy Savile,” she said on air, before hastily rowing back, presumably on legal advice.

    Now, Jimmy Saville was still alive in 2005, if she knew something or suspected something why didn’t she go to the police? Can anybody tell me why George E has now decided to place her in charge of a BBC inquiry? Isn’t she tainted goods?


  18. NotaSheep says:

    Imagine that a current senior male Conservative MP had in his youth worked for a law firm and had defended a paedophile group. How much slack would the BBC cut him for ‘only defending on the cab rank basis’? The BBC would be questioning his right to be an MP day in and day out.

    The BBC’s not reporting of this piece of Harriet Harman’s back-story is deliberately hiding possibly pertinent, but certainly interesting, information.

    The BBC’s love for the Labour party knows no limits.


  19. Marianne says:

    It’s true that left wing people in the 70s supported loweiring the age of consent to 14, something which very nearly happened. They included Margaret Becket and Roy Jenkins. I may be doing her a grave injustice but I seem to remember that Germaine Greer also felt that it was prideful and misguided of grown ups not to recognise how children might appreciate sexual contact with adults.

    But there is even more of this stuff on the right. Steve Moxon who was too right wing for UKIP thinks that eleven year old girls should be fair game and only ‘stupid’ people fail to see how right this is. A Catholic priest was given a platform on TV to expound how great paedophilia was in the 70s. The Catholic Church is still a hotbed of this kind of activity, and it is usually seen as a right wing, hierarchical organisation.

    Some right wing publications were disgusted when in 1991, marital rape was finally made a criminal offence. I think the Daily Mail might have been one of them. The ultra right Salisbury Review definitely was. The right wing Stephen Green of Christian Voice also upholds the right of a free born Englsihman to rape his own wife.

    The more hierarchical and unequal a society is, the less seriously children will be taken, so it is not surprising that right wing people sometimes support rape and child abuse. Why would left wing people in the 70s follow suit? I think they wrongly thought they were supporting liberty and tolerance.They failed to see that they were eroding the welfare of the already vulnerable. That’s how invisble children and their rights were in the 70s. It’s amazing how far we have come. Let’s never let the pendulum swing back. Harriet Harman has seen the error of her ways. Perhaps she should be allowed to live the past down.