Tags
(not satire!)
Here’s a conundrum.
Who do you think would be more likely to be telling the truth – former PM Margaret Thatcher or the Daily Mail?
In one of its recent articles attacking Harriet Harman for her links to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the Daily Mail wrote about a notorious member – a convicted paedophile called Geoffrey Prime.
Here’s the Mail article:
The child sex attacker and Soviet spy who was in the vile group legitimised by Harman and chums
But what the Mail article fails to mention is that Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher defended Prime in the House of Commons just days after his conviction for child abuse (and espionage) and denied he was a member of PIE.
Here’s what she said in reply to a question in Parliament from anti-paedophile campaigner Geoffrey Dickens MP:
Well that’s strange.
Because in its article, the Mail writes that the police found documentation at Prime’s home which showed he was a member of PIE.
But Thatcher clearly states that no such documentation was found.
Which of course, means if Thatcher and the police didn’t know Prime was a member of PIE even after he was convicted of child abuse – how could Harman or anyone else have known?
Unless of course the Mail is suggesting their beloved Margaret Thatcher was lying?
But if Thatcher was lying, why would she be covering up for a paedophile organisation?
What do you think:
.
.
Please feel free to comment.
.
beastrabban said:
Reblogged this on Beastrabban’s Weblog and commented:
This is another expose of the Mail’s hypocrisy on paedophiles. In this case, it’s about the way the Daily Mail somehow omitted the fact that a notorious paedophile and Soviet spy, Geoffrey Prime, was defended in parliament by Maggie Thatcher.
LikeLike
WormsIview said:
Prime cuts
http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/child-abusers-spies-journalists-cabinet.html
LikeLike
Johnsonas said:
Reblogged this on Johnsono ne'Blog'as.
LikeLike
thelovelywibblywobblyoldlady said:
Reblogged this on glynismillward189.
LikeLike
E,Hardcastle said:
It’s clear what Thatcher ( who I abhored) said ie; no documents were found in his house or garage, Doesn’t mean anyone was lying-perhaps there were documents elsewhere in an office or such.
Extrapolating that someone was lying is nonsense especially when you have no proof or evidence.
LikeLike
woodman19 said:
Could it be that PIE was being used as a trap by some part of the state, both to ensnare individuals and con civil libertarians into something that could be used against them later?
LikeLike
Tom Pride said:
E Hardcastle – the Mail article clearly states the police found the documents in Prime’s garage.
Please read everything carefully before commenting in future.
LikeLike
Mike Sivier said:
Reblogged this on Vox Political.
LikeLike
nuggy said:
yes i thought that too.
LikeLike
oddrod21 said:
Love how the tail-end of the mail article becomes a veiled attack on benefits, that a 76 yr old gets benefits and meals on wheels. Good old DM
LikeLike
seachranaidhe1 said:
Reblogged this on seachranaidhe1.
LikeLike
Wossnim said:
Thatcher really was a toxic piece of shit. Almost wish I had the comfort of believing in Hell…
LikeLike
guy fawkes said:
perhaps such educated people should research the organizations they are using or promoting and keep updating their knowledge of staff and how the organization is run, then they would not find themselves in such a position.
LikeLike
FinkFurst said:
Or perhaps Harriet Harman and others in the NCCL actually condoned, or at least tolerated, the aims of PIE at the time. That is the conclusion the available evidence points to. It’s inconceivable that they were unaware of the aims of PIE, yet they plainly did not oppose them.
We should all oppose such views whenever or wherever we find them…
LikeLike
Pingback: Why did Thatcher defend a P.I.E. member after his conviction for child sex attacks | Pride’s Purge « this 'n that
Pingback: Why did Thatcher defend a P.I.E. member after h...
FinkFurst said:
P.S. I think the Daily Mail is a foul little rag, and their editorial policy on this matter is deeply hypocritical, but that doesn’t mean the actual story is wrong.
LikeLike
William said:
They found documents in Prime’s garage. Thatchered lied, and not for the first time. Her party has membership of the Monday Club. Thatcher’s Home Secretary, Leon Brittan, was a frequent visitor of Elm Guest House, that was raided in 1982. Photos of Leon Brittan were found in which he was pictured as simply wearing a maids oufit, complete with maid’s cap, and a naked child on his lap. Elm Guest House was where politicians like Leon would go to interfere with children, the Monday Club procuring those children from children’s homes. By the way Tony Cameron is a member of the Monday Club. It was not all that surprising that when Philip Schofield presented Cameron with a list of known child mollesters that Cameron said that gays did not mollest children. Interesting as Elm Guest House also catered for gays. How would Cameron know that gays did not kiddy fiddle, which they would not, except he knew about Elm Guest House and the Monday club that he is a part of? Interesting site to visit Pie and Mash Films. Harmon comes out a treat on that site
LikeLike
William said:
No Harriet Harman was a campaigner for legalising child pornography, which meant that if she had managed to get her way more children would have been abused, open season, to make pics for profit. Jack Straw was another one engrossed in child abuse. Check out Pie and Mash Films and see these two squirm over their part in child abuse.
LikeLike
William said:
Check out Pie and Mash Films to see how Harman and even Jack Straw respond to being asked about their part in child abuse. Harman campaigned for child porn to be legalised, so opening up the market for more children to be abused for profit. This wicked piece of inhumanity has sold her soul to the devil, like Faustus of old
LikeLike
FinkFurst said:
Jack Straw has bigger crimes than that on his conscience!
LikeLike
Bluecat said:
I believe PIE actually received government funding from the Callaghan and Thatcher governments…
What’s curious about the misleading of Parliament is that it looks like an attempt to protect an organisation that was campaigning for the right of adults to abuse children as young as four from the disgraceful association with a man who spied for the Soviets.
LikeLike
Pingback: Hmm! Days after paedophilia scandal at No 10 uncovered, Daily Mail attacked Harman | Pride's Purge