This is Britain’s longest serving member of Parliament, representing one of Britain’s most diverse shitholes

But isn’t this racist though?

The Guardian:

Men who harass women from cars should face criminal charges, a cross-party group of MPs has urged, as the government comes under mounting pressure to criminalise sexual harassment.

Labour’s Harriet Harman and Caroline Nokes, the Conservative chair of the women and equalities select committee, have formed a cross-party alliance to push the government to beef up anti-misogyny measures via amendments in the police, crime, sentencing and courts bill.

“It makes absolutely no sense that kerb crawling is an offence if its aim is to solicit prostitution, but kerb crawling a schoolgirl to shout sexualised abuse at her is not – the law needs to be changed,” said Harman.

Yep.

Found the racist!

Harman, Nokes and others including the Conservatives Peter Bottomley and Andrew Mitchell, and the Green party MP, Caroline Lucas, are also calling for street harassment to be criminalised and for stricter controls over the use of the sexual history of complainants in rape trials.

Nokes said that when she had first discussed the idea of criminalising sexual harassment on a radio show, she received some negative feedback.

“People were basically saying to me, oh come on love, get a grip,” she said. “But when I spoke to women, they were living with this on a daily basis. Sexual harassment, catcalling, is rife, it’s unwanted, in some cases, it can be downright intimidating and scary. And it is absolutely no way for any kind of civilised society to conduct itself.”

Earlier in the year the home secretary, Priti Patel, met the organisers of Our Streets Now, a campaign group set up by sisters Gemma, 16, and Maya Tutton, 22. With the charity Plan International UK they launched a campaign called #CrimeNotCompliment and created a “ready-made bill” to tackle the issue.

Rose Caldwell, the charity’s chief executive, said a standalone law criminalising all forms of public sexual harassment was necessary. “Girls in the UK are facing harassment every day. They’re being followed, shouted at, touched and groped – and it needs to stop,” she said. “With this legal change girls and women would finally begin to feel safer in public spaces.’

In March a poll by UN Women UK found more than four-fifths of young women in the UK had been subjected to sexual harassment, and most women had lost faith that the abuse would be dealt with.

The women’s rights campaigner Nimco Ali said the fact that street sexual harassment was still legal was “bizarre”. “We ban littering, we ban smoking in public areas – now, let’s ban the behaviour of men who can’t act civilly,” she said. “I don’t think people are conscious of how it corrodes women’s experience on a day-to-day basis. Making it a crime would be a massive step forward.”

This Somali is fighting rape culture in Britain:

Obviously, what all of these women are talking about right now is Islamic behavior.

They’re not getting accused of racism, because the society at large loves Moslems but hates most of their behaviors.

But here’s the thing: this weird language effectively means that talking to women on the street will become illegal. I don’t really think anyone is going out and doing the old 2000s-era pick-up artist stuff anyway, but what they are talking about would not only criminalize Moslems driving up and yelling at women, but also just walking up to a woman and saying “hey baby, how you doin’?”

It could also conceivably be illegal to start trying to chat up a girl at a coffee shop or even a pub (probably wouldn’t be enforced at a pub, but I don’t see any reason it can’t be, based on the kind of stuff they are saying about this law).

Of course, the laws won’t ever be enforced against Moslems – because that would for sure be racist. So this is effectively just a way to ban men from flirting with women.

What that ends up doing is creating a situation where men have to wait around for women to talk to them.

This is all actually insane.

Using Islamic sexual harassment behavior to ban flirting is like using black crime statistics to push gun control.

D-Notice revelations prove deliberate cover-up. Nick Griffin explains the true significance of the latest Paedogate revelations

Any group of adult human beings can contain paedophiles who keep their evil perversion secret. It is not the presence of child molesters in an organisation that condemns it, but what the organisation does about them when they are uncovered.

In the case of the British Establishment – just like the political elites of the USA, Belgium, France, Italy and various other liberal-capitalist states – the Powers That Be didn’t ‘merely’ turn a blind eye to rampant paedophilia; they actively covered it up.

And continue to do so. For with the torrent of evidence now pouring out about the pervert rings operating in ALL the parties of government in Westminster, for the Prime Minister to call a ‘special inquiry’, rather than simply sending in the police, is itself a cover-up manoeuvre.

Because special inquiries are properly used to get to the bottom of some kind of government error or negligence by the authorities, but paedophilia is not an error or negligence, it is one of the most serious and vile crimes imaginable.

Latest powerful evidence

The latest evidence of how the Establishment did not just tolerate industrial-scale child abuse, but actually protected it, comes from the former editor of the Bury Messenger, Don Hale.

He was handed a 30-page dossier, collated by the late Baroness Castle of Blackburn, containing details of a VIP paedophile ring which included sixteen “household name” MPs and Members of the House of Lords.

After decades of frightened silence, Mr Hale has now revealed that a ‘heavy mob’ of Special Branch officers raided his office in 1984 and took away the file, threatening him with prison if he resisted.

D-notice

“They came at 8am, before most people had arrived for work, and showed me warrant cards and a D-notice and something signed by a judge. They threatened me with five to ten years in prison and took away my notebooks and all the papers Barbara had given me.”

The D-notice system was introduced in 1912 and continues to this day, though renamed DA-notice in 1993. It involves Cabinet-sanctioned ‘advice’ to editors not to publish facts that it is claimed could damage national security.

“It was a threat to national security, and not in the public interest, they told me. If I had said no, I would have been arrested. I had to give them assurances I had given them everything. They told me not to tell anyone, and the whole thing was over within half an hour.”

Mr Hale says that the seizure of the dossier came just a day after pervert Liberal MP Cyril Smith visited his office and pressed him to ‘bury’ the story.

“Cyril Smith came to my office. He must have heard about it, or been sent by, the former Liberal leader Jeremy Thorpe.

“Cyril tried to persuade me that it was “all poppycock”. He said Barbara had her ‘knickers in a twist’ since leaving the House and had become bored with wine lakes and sugar mountains in Europe.

“He played down the whole episode and wanted an assurance that I wouldn’t run anything. I couldn’t give that and he went away very disappointed.”

Protecting the guilty

Following just days after the revelations about how Leon Brittan and others ‘lost’ the dossier compiled by brave Tory MP Geoffrey Dickens, this new report gives another crucial glimpse of the way in which the security services went out of their way to protect the guilty.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2693635/Now-revealed-Barbara-Castle-drew-dossier-VIP-paedophiles-File-seized-Special-Branch-heavy-mob.html#ixzz37iHrW57c

This connects the whole Westminster paedophile scandal to the parallel one at the Kincora Boys’ Home in Northern Ireland, where the intelligence services were clearly using the paedophile guilt of various public figures to control them.

Interestingly, the BBC has belatedly caught up with my Twitter efforts to remind investigators of the Kincora scandal and to join the dots.

See more details at http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-28341109

David Icke’s theory is that paedophilia is the ‘glue’ that holds together the secret Satanic network that dominates the world’s power elite. While that may go too far, what is absolutely certain that VIP paedophile rings do exist, that their members protect and promote each other , and that police forces have taken active steps to cover for them, either because they belong to the same network or in order to blackmail the guilty.

Indeed, it is not just the police. It is now abundantly clear that the entire Westminster and media elite excused, concealed and protected a massive and murderous paedophile conspiracy at the rotten heart of the British Establishment.

The dam is cracking

The information that has already leaked out means that Paedogate dwarfs the MPs’ Expenses Scandal. The dam of controlled media collusion that has protected these vermin for too long is now cracking.

The last threads of credibility of the financially, politically and morally disgraced Establishment are now being severed. The pioneering work of campaign groups such as Labour25 is paying off at last.

We need to keep hammering away though, because as Cameron’s bogus inquiry shows, they are still trying to shore up the dam. We have to stop them, not least because the ruined lives of so many innocent children cry to Heaven for Justice.

Every reader who posts links to articles like this (for instance as ‘off topic’ comments on the unmoderated pages of newspapers) is helping to chisel another brick out of the wall of silence and lies.

Become a Dam-buster! We’re giving you the tools – now help finish the job!

A high-profile Muslim charity leader has been convicted of sexually abusing three young girls in the  1970s and 1980s.

Zafar Iqbal, chief executive of Southwark Muslim Women’s Association (SMWA) in South London, was found guilty of 25 counts of historic sex abuse against three women at Woolwich Crown Court last month.

All of his victims were under the age of 14 when the historic offences were committed.

Documents seen by The Mail on Sunday detail 67-year-old Iqbal’s sickening abuse of his young victims.

They describe how he forced his tongue into their mouths as he molested and groped them.
Iqbal founded the SMWA, which is part-funded by Southwark Council,  in 1979.

His work there included running a creche and educational and recreational programmes.

It is believed that his wife, Abida, also worked for the SMWA.

Just five years ago, Iqbal was feted for his ‘excellence in education’ at The Muslim News Awards  for Excellence.

In the course of his work he rubbed shoulders with politicians such as Labour Deputy Leader Harriet Harman and was introduced to the Queen in 2010 as part of The City Bridge Trust’s 800th anniversary celebration.

In 2009, Ms Harman, then Deputy Prime Minister, invited Iqbal and other members of the Association to the House of Commons where they were photographed together.

Read More

This week the Mail published a major exposé revealing how three senior Labour Party figures gave their support in the 1970s to a vile organisation that tried to legalise sex with children.

At the time, the trio — Harriet Harman (now deputy Labour leader), Patricia Hewitt (who was Health Secretary in the Blair government) and Jack Dromey (now a member of Ed Miliband’s Shadow Cabinet) — held key roles in the human rights campaign group the National Council For Civil Liberties (NCCL).

Harman was legal officer, Hewitt its general secretary and Dromey was on the executive committee.

Now the police have launched an investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the group to which the NCCL offered its backing, after allegations that its members sexually abused under-age children ‘on an industrial scale’.

Before the Mail published our exposé, we again submitted detailed questions to the Labour grandees and asked them to respond. None replied — although a spokesman for Harman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

Now the police have launched an investigation into the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE), the group to which the NCCL offered its backing, after allegations that its members sexually abused under-age children ‘on an industrial scale’.

Before the Mail published our exposé, we again submitted detailed questions to the Labour grandees and asked them to respond. None replied — although a spokesman for Harman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

Here we pose vital questions which Harman, Hewitt and Dromey need to answer . . .

To Harriet Harman, Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey

During your time with the NCCL, it gave significant support to PIE’s campaigns and causes. Do you now, in any way, regret this support or feel inclined to apologise to the many victims who suffered appalling abuse at the hands of the organisation you helped legitimise?

SINCE launching our investigation into the way you gave succour to a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children, none of you has apologised. Why?

To Patricia Hewitt  and Jack Dromey

Under your leadership, the NCCL granted formal ‘affiliate’ status in 1975 to the PIE. Why did you allow your organisation to be associated with an outfit that advocated the legalisation of paedophilia?

Shortly afterwards, the PIE submitted a report to MPs claiming that ‘girls as young as four months can achieve orgasm’, and that four-year-old children can ‘communicate verbally their consent to sex’.

Given this utterly repellent line of argument, why did you let the organisation remain affiliated to your NCCL?

Under your leadership, the NCCL issued a written submission in 1976 to Parliament’s Criminal Law Commission.

It claimed: ‘Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage.’ On what basis, scientific or otherwise, did you make this extraordinary claim?

The same document argued that it was ‘logical’ but ‘not politically possible’ that the age of consent should be abolished. What, in your view, is so ‘logical’ about abolishing the age of consent?

Your submission also advocated the lowering of the age of consent to 14, or ten ‘provided it is demonstrated that consent was clearly given by the child’.

Do you still believe this should be the case? And how on earth do you suppose a ten-year-old can ‘clearly give’ consent?

In addition , the submission proposed that ‘the crime of incest be abolished’, arguing that the suggestion that genetic damage may result from children born of incestuous unions ‘is in direct contradiction to the practices of successful animal breeders’. Do you still take this extraordinary view?

The section of your 1976 report to MPs advocating legalisation of incest argued that ‘bringing in the law’ when a minor has been abused by an adult ‘could do immense harm to the child’ and that ‘publicity in the local press and the reaction of neighbours’ during a trial is often more damaging to the victim than the actual crime. What evidence did you have to support this highly controversial claim?

To Harriet Harman

The NCCL’s controversial affiliation with the PIE, its support for lowering (or even abolishing) the age of consent, and its demand for the legalisation of incest were all widely reported throughout the 1970s.

Why, given these morally offensive views, did you take a job with the NCCL in 1978?

As the NCCL’s legal officer, you wrote and signed a four-page submission to MPs seeking to water down a proposed ban on child pornography.

Your briefing paper argued that ‘images of naked children should only be considered pornographic if it could be proven that the subject had suffered’. Do you still hold these views?

To Patricia Hewitt and Jack Dromey

Given your positions of influence in the NCCL, were you aware that Harriet Harman sought to water down the 1978 child pornography law, and if you were, why did you not try to prevent it?

Read More

The full extent of the shocking links between three senior Labour figures and a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children can be exposed today.

The trio held key roles in a human rights organisation that supported the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange.

Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt were all leading officials in the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Astonishingly this Left-wing group granted ‘affiliate’ status to PIE and built close links with it.

The group of predatory paedophiles was calling for the age of consent to be cut to just four.

Police are now investigating PIE as part of Operation Fernbridge, launched in the wake of the Jimmy Savile scandal.

A senior source on the investigation says there is evidence PIE members were abusing children ‘on an industrial scale’.

The Home Office is also probing shocking claims that the Labour government of the 1970s may have helped finance the paedophile group.

Civil servants are trawling through decades of files after an ‘insider’ claimed tens of thousands of pounds were funnelled to PIE in the form of annual grants to the network of child abusers while James Callaghan was in Downing Street.

A Daily Mail investigation has discovered that during the 1970s and 1980s:

* Miss Hewitt described PIE in glowing terms as ‘a campaigning/counselling group for adults attracted to children’;

* The NCCL lobbied Parliament for the age of sexual consent to be cut to ten – if the child consented and ‘understood the nature of the act’.

* It called for incest to be legalised in what one MP dubbed a ‘Lolita’s charter’;

* The NCCL claimed research shows young paedophile victims are often ‘consenting or even the initiators of the sexual acts involved’;

* It filed a submission to Parliament claiming that ‘childhood sexual experiences,   willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage’.

*  Miss Harman, as NCCL legal officer, tried to water down child pornography laws.

*  NCCL lawyers acted for a PIE member who was quizzed by police over appalling behaviour.

The Mail has repeatedly sent detailed questions to Miss Harman, Miss Hewitt and Mr Dromey about their links to PIE and whether they now regret supporting such a vile group. Neither Miss Hewitt nor Mr Dromey replied.

A spokesman for Miss Harman said: ‘This story is untrue and ridiculous.’

Read More

Labour’s hopes depend on whether Ed the house-builder can also reconstruct the state

Would we need 5 new towns , if our population had not risen so much because he , and his rotten party had not encouraged mass immigration, even going so far as to ”send out search parties ” to further enrich our country.?

The absolute effrontery of Milliband, Balls and Harman, in thinking that they have any right to govern,after the catastrophic effects that their policy of mass immigration has inflicted on our country, is breathtaking.

Incidentally, the tribal view of Labour by our white working class is quickly breaking down, and I speak as one of them.

It is us who have born the brunt of the traitorous policies of Labour.

We have lost our social housing, our school places, our jobs, our places in the medical centres, some of us have lost our under age daughters to the groomers and rapists

As far as I can see he has no policies or even any ideas whatsoever on creating economic growth based on increasing wealth generation by the private sector which is the only way of slowing down the UK’s climbing debt mountain. I suspect this is because he has no real contacts with the private sector and nobody in his party who has any ideas how to engineer real economic growth. The private sector is a part of the universe that left wing labour has never visited or ever will. Miliband talks about the private sector as though they are little more than criminals needing regular application of the labour stick to fall into line. This type of limited thinking is basically hopeless as far as creating a new future for the UK is concerned. Redistribution and kicking the private sector will not generate any economic growth whatsoever so if Labour get in the EU. We will be condemned to low growth, spendthrift policies and private companies deciding to invest elsewhere in the world. His policy of an energy price freeze shows he is either disingenuous or clueless. It really doesn’t matter which as both approaches are totally hopeless. Why does the UK political class have to be so utterly useless and naïve? Are only entrants who are totally useless, naive and understand nothing of how the real world outside politics works acceptable to UK political parties, especially Labour?

The UK needs politicians who understand the real world and finance instead of the self-seeking vacuous know-nothings who stand there pontificating and preening themselves to look pretty (not even looking pretty in Miliband’s case).