Prince Andrew – The Right Royal Lizard Tale
The furore around a disposable parasite’s conduct distracts from a REAL investigation into the Epstein case
Kit Knightly
The Queen is cancelling Prince Andrews birthday party. It’s big news. Oh, and some charities are declining to work with him.
This is all off the back of his (allegedly) voluntary, stilted and frankly bizarre Newsnight interview with Emily Maitlis. The collection of jarring statements, fairly obvious evasions and upper-class waffle has been autopsied to death. We don’t need to go over it again.
In fact, mocking Prince Andrew has become the pastime du jour. Everyone’s doing it. Isn’t it fun to partake? Make a little dig, really throw something back in the face of the establishment?
Really though, shouldn’t we know better?
The voice of the mainstream can NOT be trusted. It is never more important to remember this than when it is telling you what you want to hear.
Everybody should have learned by now, the media – and most especially the BBC – don’t have ANY duty to the truth. They can’t be forced to report something just because it’s true. They actively and willfully ignore true things all the time.
A few years ago 50,000 people marched past television centre, and the BBC simply ignored them all.
When the powers who control mainstream media don’t want to talk about something, it. Doesn’t. Get. Talked. About.
The corollary of this is that when the mainstream media is talking about something it’s for one reason and one reason only – they want to talk about, because somewhere, somehow an agenda is being served.
What’s the agenda being served here? It’s impossible to know for sure at this stage, but it’s certainly true that while we’re talking about Prince Andrew having sex with a 17-year-old, we’re not talking about REAL paedolphilia.
We’re not talking about orphanages on Jersey or trafficking in Belgium, or Jimmy Savile. And we’re not talking about any of the names in Epstein’s “little black book”.
I’m not minimising or apologising for Prince Andrew’s alleged conduct, but let us recall the age of consent in the UK (and many American States) is 16. Significantly, he’s not being accused of doing anything actually illegal.
Do we really think this is that all the Epstein case boils down to? Is this as dark as the underbelly of the political elite gets?
It is sleazy, it is unseemly, and it is highly unpleasant. But it’s NOT a crime, and it’s certainly not a source of powerful political leverage. Nobody is being blackmailed into line based on this.
You don’t need to fly people to private Islands in the Caribbean to have sex with 17-year-olds. You don’t need to “traffic” legal teenagers in order to find girls willing to have sex with billionaires or royalty.
Clearly there must be something more to Epstein, his goals and his agenda, but none of that is being talked about.
While Andrew is being pilloried, and the BBC is getting plaudits for “hard-hitting” journalism, there are proven cases of institutional paedophilia that are far deeper and darker than anything being discussed by the BBC.
While we’re all laughing at Andrew, we’re forgetting that Prince Charles never gave, and was never asked to give, an interview explaining his “friendship” with Jimmy Savile.
While we’re huffing and puffing over “Royal conduct” and sex with girls of legal age, we’re not talking about the fact there are sitting MPs who were once “affiliated” with groups that campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 10. We’re forgetting that accusations of REAL paedophilia circulate around many high-profile MPs (usually only after they die).
And, of course, lost in all the fuss about Andrew is the fact Jeffrey Epstein is dead.
It may have been memed into a meaningless catchphrase, but it’s still true – Epstein didn’t kill himself. Not alone, anyway.
Broadly speaking one of only three things can have happened:
He called in some favours and faked his death.
He was allowed/encouraged to commit suicide.
He was outright murdered.
Which of these took place we may never know, but it doesn’t really matter. He’s gone. And wherever or however he’s gone, he didn’t do it alone.
Someone – or a collection of someone’s – helped him on his way, either literally or euphemistically.
Why?
Why is always the most important question, you can tell that because it’s always the one media ignore. We’re never encouraged to wonder why anything happens, to think through motive, risk-reward calculations or basic strategy.
These are the big questions, going unanswered while we all partake of Prince Andrew free-for-all.
The fool of the family used to go into the Army or the Church, but now he’s dressed in motley and thrust in front of the TV cameras to gambol and pratfall to the laughs and jeers of the common man. The individual is sacrificed, but the institution is preserved.
I’ve used the autotomy of lizard tails as a metaphor before, and while it may display a lack of imagination to revisit that particular well, there’s no denying it fits well enough.
Of course there’s a temptation to go after Prince Andrew, he likely deserves it, but if we throw everything behind that, we’re in danger of losing the bigger picture. Like a dog being distracted with a string of sausages.
There’s something much bigger than Prince Andrew at the heart of all this, but we won’t find it if we content ourselves with feasting on the morsels the press are happy to feed us.
SUPPORT OFFGUARDIAN
If you enjoy OffG's content, please help us make our monthly fund-raising goal and keep the site alive.
For other ways to donate, including direct-transfer bank details click HERE.
I cannot believe that the author of this article is downplaying the suspected complicity of Prince Andrew in the Weinstein case by saying that the age of consent is 16 yrs old. He is missing the whole point of the charges against Weinstein. Many of the girls were underage and did not have consensual sex with the men who paid for their services. These girls were groomed to be used the men brought in by Weinstein. They were young enough to be impressed by money and power and the men who availed themselves of their “services” certainly knew that – that’s the moral issue. The author’s attitude towards the Weinstein case is akin to saying that prostitution or rape is ok as long as the person is 16 yrs old. Perhaps next time the author will do his homework before writing such rubbish.
It is strange that the legal age of consent in New York (17 yrs) is being studiously avoided.
If Andrew is being “Thrown under the bus”, then who has the power to do the throwing? Someone who wields a greater deal of power than a UK Royal, another royal perhaps, someone “Who knows where the bodies are buried”?
But it is true, if we were not supposed to be watching this, we would not be being shown it, a simple fact of life
Oh … So very true.
Kit may be right, but even so Andrew can’t unfuck himself after THAT interview: anhidrosis, Pizzas Express, describing paedophilia as unbecoming.
Maitlis should have told the arrogant gobshite to stop lying every time he made improbable excuses for his sleazy behaviour.
Hillsborough, Grenfell, Iraq, JFK, Bolivia, the Epstein scandal, or other examples in a long, and infamous list: isn’t the bottom line clear?
Certain individuals can more or less get away with anything they like because they are above the law.
No, no, H., it’s because he’s “too honourable.”
Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is the official head of the worldwide Anglican communion, and her first born is an uncharged accomplice to underage sex trafficking of human beings via first hand testimony of one victim that was trafficked to Prince Andrew for purposes of sexual slavery from which there was no escape.
Apologists for Andrew have an agenda of their own IMHO.
Lastly, the old nuts & sluts defence of yesteryear is long outdated with the #MeToo era whereby women & girls are now believed to be telling the truth about being used sexually given the stats recorded to date on the odds of women or girls lying about sexual assault. Police now investigate all claims instead of reflexively denying all claims as they did in past times historically across the Western empire.
MOU
Do you mean Prince Charles in your reference to “her first born”? Andrew is younger than Charles and Anne.
I meant third born but said first by mistake. Review of the historiography indicates that Charles is also accused of sexual impropriety. Bottom line is that the Queen as head of the morally bereft of Anglicanism is also culpable for the sins of the clergy & her child molesting son Andrew of whom we all know was nicknamed ‘Randy Andy’ in his younger days of philandering philanthropic drunken meandering through life as a so-called ‘royal’ spawn of Satan.
The Queen should throw him from a tower to see if he bounces when he hits the ground as a test of his loyalty for royalty.
MOU
The BBC programme seems to be an exercise in crisis management.
Giuffre is implied to be a gold digger, book deals, $160,000 payments etc.
Nothing about Mossad or the intelligence/ blackmail element.
Nothing about the Clintons or the hundreds of VIPs involved.
Nothing about Epstein’s murky financial dealings.
A bald assertion that he “committed suicide.”
Very few real questions raised, let alone answered.
Pretty much what you’d expect from the BBC.
As far as I’m aware, if you are 18 or over, you cannot legally have sex with anyone under 18, even if they consent. It’s called ‘statutory rape’ in the US. Even so, most people would probably not find the concept of having sex with a 17 year-old as off-putting as having it with a 7 year-old, so maybe that’s why they’re harping on the Prince Andrew thing: distraction and damage control.
It is defined as statutory rape if the person is under the age of consent – i.e. in UK and here in NZ it is 16 years old. But I agree a 17 year old is hardly in a position of power sufficient to feel she can say no to someone as politically powerful as Prince Andrew.
Have you noticed there in New Zealand that Google’s Captcha images label things with strange names from the movies, like ‘crosswalks’ or ask for all the images with “palm trees” to be identified? Well then. Cultural ignorance mixed with cultural arrogance is what everyone, everywhere, swims in.
Surely it’s relevant that Pretender Prince Andrew has been in near “constant” contact with Ghislane Maxwell since Epstein’s “suicide” on Aug. 10th. Remember that pedophilia and blackmail go hand in hand and that Maxwell was likely Epstein’s handler from the Mossad side of the intelligence operation. Note that Prince Andrew’s apparently inexplicable decision to be interviewed may have its origin in Maxwell. Andrew’s appearing on TV was a veiled message to others–they know who they are–that the tapes did not “die” with Epstein, and that Maxwell better not be harmed if/when she reemerges on the elite social scene…..
https://nypost.com/2019/12/01/prince-andrew-in-constant-contact-with-epstein-ex-ghislaine-maxwell-report/
Really interesting website http://www.villagemagazine.ie has a journalist providing more hard hitting facts about the Anglo Irish Vice Ring in two months than the combined UK MSM managed in 30 years. He covers not only Kincora but other childrens homes around Belfast, a private school service a similar function to QVS in Scotland, very specific names in Ulster Unionism involved in very specific things, named hotels in Belfast and Portrush where untoward things took place and quite a bit more.
Obvious other things to probe about Randy Andy:
1. Was the overly high sale price for a mansion owned by DOY linked to laundering dirty money of the purchaser?
2. Is DOY HIV positive and will he ‘die of leukaemia’ if necessary? (spook rumours 25+ years ago is where thst comes from)
3. What commissions did DOY earn for promoting arms deals and were such earnings officially declared?
If I were JE I would be blackmailing Clinton something chronic about women in Arkansas, Mena AK airstrip and drugrunning and his ongoing propensity for white powder.
Why Clinton was going to USVI Lolita island I have no idea.
I think you’ll be interested in this Daily Mail report from last Sunday.
Or if you want the main points in a nutshell:
So Andy Panky was involved in encouraging tax evasion and money laundering, taking advantage of his position as UK trade ambassador or whatever to enrich himself, and possibly even breaching UK laws on government confidentiality.
He was just going there for the bird watching.
Lolita Island is world famous as the unique breeding habitat of the lesser crested shitehawk.
Commendable how you run to defend Prince Andrew, there’s no proof that he only had sex with 17 year old trafficked girls. You’re deflecting just as much as mainstream media. In your misguided zeal to protect this royal, you’re doing exactly as those you profess to hate. You mention Andrew’s “sins” as an aside and then run away from real comment.
Royals are at their base, racist and they believe the law is made for commoners not for the elite such as themselves. Racist, because they claim to be better than you due to the circumstances of their birth. I’m a rich white guy born into house Windsor bow before me. Vomit!
Editor: In his zeal to put marks on a page Fresno seems to have let most of this article go by unread. Or perhaps he has comprehension challenges. But either way, we congratulate him on making our central point for us again, BTL and less coherently – ed
For me, there’s an even bigger picture.
In ten days there’s a vitally important general election yet the BBC, tonight, is showing a programme featuring the individual behind the allegations made against Prince Andrew. The same individual who is currently engaged in a US lawsuit to grab a chunk of Epstein’s estate! How is this even appropriate. Is she being paid to appear? Has she been paid for all the other interviews she’s been giving to media outfits from here to Australia?
I’m more interested in the election and Johnson’s despicable tactics in dodging a particular interviewer. I’m more interested in the BBC decision to let Johnson waltz on to Marr yesterday and turn a dreadful event into a Party-political point scoring opportunity! I’m more interested in who made the decision at the BBC to spin the commitment made to WASPI women by Labour as a willingness to gift Theresa May a few grand! I’m more interested in the utter bias that is surging through every word uttered by the BBC.
Very plausible.
Divert, distract, deceive.
Standard hasbara.
The Randy Andy Circus plus 3 “foaming at the mouth moslem” incidents in London, Holland and New Orleans just before the election.
Absolutely, controlled media’s critical job is to distract from what matters. In addition to what is listed in the article, there is an unrestrained frenzy to fill all pages with bullshit, smear and lies in order to keep people from thinking about Assange and what is happening to him in the custody of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy*.
*if you feel sick in the stomach while seeing what is happening under ‘the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy’ then you are human!
words matters, right?
we ‘have to’ unshakle our vocabulary and say things as they are
no longer place the word Prince before Andrew or Charles etc.. but use real adjectives like Parasite. there are indeed 4 common letters in Prince and Parasite (plus one common S sound), so the changeover will quite natural.
leave ‘Prince Andrew’ to mainstream media.
it’s pleasingly accurate to see the word Parasite in the subheading, but it makes more sense if it’s in the heading, and best, before Andrew.
Her Majesty Parasite Queen Elizabeth II would be amused.
MOU
I was going to say: ‘Shouldn’t that ‘gamble’ be ‘gambol’, Kit? But then I thought: No! Both words apply!
As the purported evidence for both suicide and murder is laughable and they are the only options pushed by both mainstream and alternative media generally, I’m plumping for escape to desert island but as you say, Kit, it doesn’t really matter.
Flaxy, what’s your opinion on the claim that he is / was an alien lizard shape shifting being who has been teleported back up to the mothership?
Subscribe to Shaun Attwoods’ YouTube channel and you will not miss a single development , however small , in the Epstein / Ghilane Maxwell case.
https://youtu.be/IJ-qO4Mv7bg
Very tiresome material which really says nothing significant.
Evidence of some kind is the only possible justification for such advertising, and this is just a monotonous voice droning on about the superficials of this matter.
Click bait.
I have wondered why Andrew put himself on the chopping block to distract from all others. He is not exactly low hanging fruit to offer the masses some semblance of apology for hanging out with a pretty dodgy fellow and getting up to nefarious things. Neither has he ever been one of the Royals the common people would hang on the every word, more we would scorn and be contemptuous of his antics played out over the decades. So, he has built up a thick skin over the years to be fair, which made him ‘right’ for the job of ‘apologising’ to the people and putting the record straight…And then disappearing from public life.
Whatever I think of Andrew or Epstein, it feels he was tasked with taking the heat, but who asked him to and why? The history of these murky going’s on, I’m sure, will only show us the tip of the iceberg, but here are some places I’ve read, make of it what you will.
The Dunblane Massacre and the connection Thomas Hamilton Had –
https://www.ukcolumn.org/article/dunblane-massacre-–-crown-office-obstruction-and-disinformation
Do look at the Child link on the UK Column as it has extensive articles, including the CSE scandals in Scotland, Ireland and elsewhere.
An extensive collation of info from SOTN (state of the Nation) alt site –
http://stateofthenation.co/?p=319
Mountbatten and his interest ‘allegedly’ in young boys
https://metro.co.uk/2019/08/18/prince-charles-mentor-was-a-homosexual-with-lust-for-young-boys-fbi-files-say-10590798/
And this Child Trafficking documentary banned in Europe recently, I’ve not watched it as yet, so don’t know it’s content
http://stateofthenation.co/?p=169
All roads lead to the well heeled/ well invested and the poor are their vehicle
Just my humble opinion and none of the links are my own, just places I’ve landed to try and make sense of how the world is turning, as I regularly wish it to stop, so I can get off.
Distract, divert, deceive.
Randy Andy should rightly be hauled over the coals and grilled over what he got up to, not in a soft Maitlis interview, but by being asked the questions that even the most junior cub reporter would want to put to him.
But he is just being set up as flak bait to divert attention from hundreds of others like Clinton.
The establishment probably regard him as expendable, knowing that at the end of the day nothing will be allowed to happen to him.
Some people are expendable, like Rolf Harris and Gary Glitter.
Others are protected while they are alive, like Savile, Janner, Heath, and Cyril Smith.
The rest have to be protected and the victims warned off, with the 18 year sentence handed down in the Carl Beech case.
Though Weinstein is a sleazebag, he is a similar sacrificial offering to divert attention from the real Hollywood scandal, the epidemic of paedo abuse of child actors like Corey Feldman.
Anything that has emerged so far is not even the tip of the iceberg. It doesn’t even scratch the surface.
This might be of interest (particularly since Carl Beech has been banged-up for 16 years for non-violent crimes).
Let’s not even mention Julian Assange, because we live in ‘a wonderful land of freedom and democracy, and the twerrorists hate us for it’ (cue the next terrorist attack to keep this lie going).
Getting back to the paedo pandemic, this is from 2 years ago, from ABC Australia…
It almost seems as Virginia is the Carl of this particular cross Atlantic child abuse gang.
Prince Andrew and his ex-wife Sarah Ferguson are easy victims because they and their staff (especially Amanda Thirsk) appear to be not too bright, their buttons are easily pushed where money might be involved and they are very constrained in the ways and methods they can fight back when they are pushed into a corner by their grubby behaviours. So the MSM, eagerly sensing slight whiffs of scandal and opportunities to mercilessly bag people whose crime is to be born into money and privilege (but not to use those advantages in ways that most people wouldn’t think of anyway, instead using those advantages for self-interest, just as those working in the MSM would if they’d also been born to wealth and privilege) to bump up sales revenues, run after them and snap at their heels like terriers.
What the MSM ignore of course is where and how Jeffrey Epstein got the money, other support and the contacts to be able to build his sex-trafficking / blackmailing operation to a global level, and which organisations, governments and intelligence agencies were profiting from his blackmailing.
We should not be surprised either if through his blackmailing of people like Prince Andrew and others (who might have also profited financially through their associations with Epstein – that bit seems also to be too hard for the MSM to chase) by recording their sexual activities with trafficked teenage girls, that Epstein might have also had an interest in investing in surveillance technologies that could be used in much broader contexts. There may be more people in his little black books than we know, and not all of them would have been Lolita Express passengers.
https://mol.im/a/7742171
See who Weinstein turned to for help Jen, and how she gave it?
Fascinating.
I’m sure the scope of the can of worms is vaster than we can imagine, Jen. I’ve seen “organ harvesting” mentioned in connection with Epstein’s name too. Doesn’t necessarily mean anything but “human trafficking” isn’t just about sexual slavery – not that that isn’t bad enough. I mean when you’re prepared to sink very low why would you particularly stop anywhere and we know from people such as Australian woman, Fiona Barnett, that these people are into Satanic practices involving sacrifice of children and cannibalism.
https://fionabarnett.org/
This article is spot on in raising this issue. I am convinced that there are numerous child sex rings which exist in highest circles. The Prince Andrews and other lesser offenders are useful to distract people away from them. Take a guess at how many people in the population sexually abuse children. Then times that by 10 and you might be close. Then apply another multiple to politicians, judiciary, media, celebrities and other elites and you might understand the problem. The BBC and institutions ignoring it as it went on.Kit is right all these people are named after they are dead. But I recall hearing rumours about many of these people back in the 80s. And don’t think these rings were more common in the past – they adapt and evolve to escape detection and hide behind good causes.
Excellent analysis Kit, right on the money. This kind of independent, objective PoV is exactly why I pay my subs to OffG.
Kit, a very astute analysis of the situation. He must, one can only assume, have been aware that his role as a ‘sacrificial lamb’ (people distractor) would carry a high price.
The question is, he doesn’t strike me as the sort of chap who would sacrifice himself for others. Either he is as dumb as he acts or the lizard’s predilections run far deeper within the establishment than we initially suspected.
Should the latter apply Andy’s performance reveals the true extent of their power behind the throne and such a power will ultimately consume us all.
Have said this before, I think, but one possibility is that Andrew took a bribe from the Tories to do this (what did he have to lose? – his reputation wasn’t all that good to begin with) and distract attention from Boris’s less than stellar election campaign. And the bribe? Well, financial security for the ever-loyal and ever-needy Fergie for one; something for the two mannequins; and I’m sure he could use some ready cash himself.
And/or they’ve got something on him (not necessarily sexual) much more serious than (alleged) legal sex with a 17-year-old. Perhaps relating to his days as an arms salesman. Anyway, something he’d really like to keep quiet, and which H.M.’s spooks know all about.
Very well said Kit . It is so easy to lose site of the big picture ,the one that is pushed aside without mention, so no one will look.
It is obvious that we will no longer hear anything of value regarding Epstein because there simply are way too many that can’t afford to have their closet skeletons exposed to the public.Namely a good proportion of politicians and extremely wealthy individuals.For those of us that need catching up , look up Whitney Webb on her journalistic writing on this topic.Mint Press to start off your search .
Thanks for the reminder Kit ,for us to keep our eyes on the proverbial ball.
The media keeps repeating the age of the girl Andrew who accuses Andrew of sleeping with her. Maybe they’re trying to distract us from asking who else and what age?
Whatever the case, because no British government wants to be the one that could bring down the royal family, anything illegal Andrew may have done means our government becomes open to blackmail.
Some useful advice from Chomsky
‘when the press focuses on the sex lives of politicians, reach for your pocket, and see who’s pulling out your wallet, because those are not the issues that matter to people. I mean, they’re very marginal interest. The issues that matter to people are somewhere else, so as soon as you hear, you know, the press and presidential candidates and so on, talking about “values”, as I say, put your hand on your wallet – you know that something else is happening.’
This is not about “sex lives”, Willem, this is something much more serious than that involving innocent children and adults having unspeakable things done to them that is an intrinsic part of the power elite’s concerns. Nevertheless, everything may be used as distraction no matter what, and, in fact, that is what is suggested in the article – it’s the less serious end of the continuum being focused on to distract from the much more serious other end, without wanting to minimise the less serious end.
I think Epstein and Maxwell were running a sophisticated blackmail network designed not to make money – they both had plenty of that! – but to provide INTEL to the State they both regarded as their birthright and their duty to assist. Robert Maxwell had been instrumental in setting up what became Mossad when he was in the British Army in Yugoslavia in WW2. It was undoubtedly where his loyalties lay. No surprise that his favourite daughter was an important agent. The pair had unique access to the ’Great and Good’,as they’re laughingly called in the UK, a class of parasites that clearly fell for underage girls. Things like drugs are easily obtainable via their doctors but underage sex is more difficult to find – so the pair made it easier. The surveillance cameras whirred away. Epstein may have been persuaded that suicide was his only option but it seems more likely he was bumped off before he talked. Apparently during his final 2 weeks in custody he was in a bad way, cracking up according to other inmates. A dangerous situation for his bosses. HRH may have been a victim or maybe it was just some insurance? But Epstein appears to have stage managed the Walk in the Park snaps and the video at his house showing fat arse waving goodbye to a girl. Is it odd that the photographer was none other than the Daily Mail’s EX favourite trouble maker, the Sheikh who was not in fact Arab but Jewish. It was the Daily Mail that first showed the Walk in the Park photo and the video which effectively started the whole story running. Why? What was their interest?
Very interesting re Walk in the Park photo. I’d take the other inmates’ alleged testimony about Jeffrey cracking up with a grain of salt though who the hell knows, maybe it’s genuine but we can guess that so many people in high places are involved that it was all just a going- through-the-motions thing before he escaped off to his island paradise.
When Robert Maxwell fell off the back of his yacht one night he was buried within 24 hours in a particularly special spot in Jerusalem (one that was unlikely ever to be disturbed). Identification came from his wife. Many wondered whether it was a ruse for him to escape justice for the £400m he’d stolen from the Daily Mirror pension fund. Maybe Epstein is already on the beach? Another odd thread in the story is the fact that some years ago the Mail’s Fake Sheikh (before his imprisonment for setting up innocents for cocaine dealing) targeted Sarah Ferguson, details of which escape me). So is this a Mail operation and if so Why? Maybe Sarah was rude to Lady Rothermore, she is very touchy by all accounts!
Could be. I tend to think of the power elite as an homogenous group all in it together but, of course, they will have their infighting and factions no doubt.
The start of a planned ‘sting’ operation to divert from real bictims and real perps a la Carl Beech.
With tremendous pay offs for the stingers!
The lizard metaphor – especially applied to royalty – conjures up all that David Icke stuff about reptilian entities. You don’t suppose….
You are being unkind to reptiles.
Yes, lizards are charming little creatures.
Yes – he is taking the flak as diversion and a line under it.
Blackmail is part of the way power struggle ‘works’.
Someone who cant be controlled at need is not ‘trusted’.
Power struggle is deeply pervasive to our consciousness – but we mostly internalise it under narrative identity. Loss of power like loss of love or peace – polarises a drive to regain it externally.
The addiction to pleasures and power trip fantasies all leads towards a bottoming out that might be a long time coming when there is a social or collective support for it.
I think you should name the sitting MPs “who were once “affiliated” with groups that campaigned to have the age of consent lowered to 10.” Thank you.
If you need names you haven’t been paying attention
https://guardianlv.com/2014/02/daily-mail-hysteria-over-harriet-harman-and-pedophilia/
That’s bullshit journalism – from the US and 5 years old to boot – and regurgitating the Fail. It’s on a level with those who try to associate Corbyn with the IRA. I probably despise Harman and Dromey more than you do and Chakrabarti has already displayed her india-rubber spine in other contexts – but this is beneath contempt. As a 16 year old shipyard apprentice I had a short period when I wandered round in a jacket with NF scrawled on the back because some of the 18/19 yr old apprentices told me it was a cool thing to do. They gave me an initiation task which was to knock on the door of another apprentice who came from Sierra Leone and ask him whether when he wanked in the bath there was an oil slick. He clearly didn’t know WTF I was going on about so I ran off down the road. I never met anybody from the NF, I didn’t even know who they were. Suffice it to say that by the age of 19 I had joined the Labour Party and a was a candidate at the age of 23. Thank god social media didn’t exist in them days! Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.
Editor: This hysterical denunciation is either an emotional outburst or an attempt to deter through faux outrage. The claim made in our article is entirely correct, and the link provided by Admin proves it.
@Ieuan – wtf are you on about? Harriet Harman was a member of the NCCL and its acting attorney while it was “affiliated” (their word) with the Paedophile Information Exchange, an openly pro-pedo group that was lobbying to reduce the age of consent to 10.
At this time Harman also argued against the criminalisation of child porn – claiming possession and production of such images should not be considered a crime unless it could be shown children had been harmed during the process.
How you equate this with wearing a NF logo on your jacket for a few months as a kid is beyond me. Why are you bending truth to breaking point to defend this awful woman? Are you her agent or something?
The hysteria may lie elsewhere.
Good luck luean, you are dealing with hardliners here.
I have nothing whatever to say in Harman’s favour but this particular criticism of her position, which we now realise/believe to be outlandish, is anachronistic. And unhelpful, the tabloids may wallow in the excitement of the lynch mob but we have none of their excuses (circulation, the lowest common denominator, the need to encourage violent reactions). It is incumbent on us to understand what prompted Harman’s contemporaries a generation ago to promote the ideas that they did. And one way to understand the situation then is to consider the distorting weight of a long history of Victorian hypocrisy and sexual puritanism. Of which there are alarming signs of their return, albeit wrapped up in the requisite political gear.
You’re talking total bollocks: I’m not 16 any more and I was expelled from the Labour Party in 2017 after having rejoined to support Corbyn – for being a “supporter of the communist party,” by the lickspittle who subsequently spilled his guts out on Panorama, Sam Matthews. When I suggested Matthews and his ilk should be treated like scabs I was attacked by Zionist trolls led by Rachel Riley and reported to both the the French and British police. I am currently under investigation for these and other alleged crimes. I don’t hide behind a false name and if by chance our class ever came to power, it would be payback time for Harman/Dromey and friends. None of that excuses pure bullshit and warped conspiracy theories- our enemies are real enough without resort to that. Now – go and fuck yourself.
The first thing that caught my attention looking at the provided link was the oddity of not having been commented on once. This appears to be an important issue and the fact that it says “by Kate Henderson on February 26, 2014 – 0 Comments” seems to be implausible and unbelievable, albeit not impossible.
That a five year old article about the issue received zero comments is difficult to grasp in a world where commenting is so prevalent. I know nothing about “The Guardian Liberty Voice” and was only now made aware that it exists through your link. Having read the article there can be only one conclusion.
Why am I not surprised that the country that engages in war crimes also fancies child molestation?
Harman for one. There were some other stupid bints with her at the NCCL. But they didn’t want to lower the age of consent to 10.
They and their chums in the Paedophile Information Exchange wanted to lower the age of consent to FOUR.
And they were given a grant of £70,000 of public money.
Our lords and masters won’t stop at gay and trannie perversions and degeneracy.
Paedophilia, bestiality, incest and cannibalism are next in the pipeline.
paul, that’s nonsense! Paul
Unfortunately it isn’t, P.
They’ve already started pushing all these things.