We took that step quite some time ago.

On a note that's not unconnected, nice to see the [iDaily Mail[/i proving, once again, what a hypocritical piece of filth it is.

Attempting to smear people (and I dislike Harman personally) while at the same time continuing to profit from sexualising underage girls.

A private High Court hearing was held yesterday in which lawyers for 140 alleged victims of Jimmy Savile are attempting to set up a compensation scheme to claim from the £4million estate which has been mainly left to charity the reports on local radio yesterday were that "victims" could expect something in the region of £60,000 each and the lawyers group were appealing for any more "victims" to come forward and place their claims.

So yes, it needs a compensation scheme to attract "victims".

There were comments from random West Yorkshire citizens that compensation should consist of counseling rather than hard cash as some of the stories from the lawyers indicate that all these years later the "victims" are still suffering mental issues from the alleged abuse, counseling and medical treatment would seem to be the thing they all require most rather than £60,000 surely ?

Thread drift alert.

In 1987 in an ordinary West Yorks high school if a teacher spanked a boy on the , in front of a changing room full of kids, would he have been at risk of arrest/dismissal if the kid had pursued a complaint? Or were teachers still allowed to do that?

The reason that I ask was because that happened to me. I know that I thought he had no right to hit me like that, and I was fuming and seriously considering punching him in the face because I figured there was nothing he could do about it.

I quickly came to the conclusion that I really didn't need the fall out from being a kid who smacked a teacher so just got over it. But I am interested to know if he was allowed to discipline me like that.

I had thought that at that time, 1987, that teachers were not allowed to spank their pupils. I may be wrong but I am sure they aren't allowed to do that but maybe your teacher just didn't give a chuff about it. He certainly should not have done it front of others as that is out of order.

Sometimes its necessary to answer allegations almost irrespective of the morality of the accuser. The MP's expenses scandal first broke in the Telegraph when a former owner of the paper was serving time for fraud!

Even if its only the Mail, Harman needs to either answer the accusations or deny that they are factually accurate and sue.

rlLinkrl

Tim Fenton is worth followingDaily Mail[/i – bringing you the best pedo-lite coverage on the web.

Weren't the Nazi's, amongst others, very good at applying guilt by association ?

If that is the case then are we all guilty because since the first signs of life started we are descended from that.

What an absolute ridiculous typical right wing smear story.

I'm just amazed that there was a group of people who were brazen enough to openly campaign as paedophiles ....

I'm in my mid 40's and while I acknowledge that we have moved on with regard to political correctness and the like, I can't honestly believe that things were so backward during the time in which these allegations against Harman supposedly took place??

There was indeed such a group but the "softening up" of the pedophile legislation accusation that the Mail has pinned directly to Harmon relates to the ill thought out initial bill that would have meant that parents who took photographs of their own naked babies and young children (bath time scenes for instance) could in theory have been arrested, tried, convicted and put on the sex offenders list - thats the bit that Harmon and others were arguing against.

Given that The Mail have sexualised a photo of an eight year old in a bikini in the past I would have thought they'd be very much in favour of the lowering of the age of consent to ten years and so by implication would their slavering readership for without them the photos would not be purchased and included on their sidebar of shame.

And FFS – rightly so.



The Mail is a disgrace on this. It quite clearly trades on and profits from a pedo-lite approach to underage girls.

And to clarifyMail[/i online addresses and contact points. They ignore it – because they know they're bang to rights on it. But presumably, they also know that they make money from it and don;t want to change that.

There is a very good article behind the paywall in The Times today rlhttps://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/life/article4016187.ecerl about attitudes to sex and the legal battles against a loosening of "morals" by a very vocal minority, many of whom held positions of authority - it all culminated in the Oz trial of course, a copy of which was once brought into our all-boys Grammar School and passed around in great secrecy lest the Head spot it and burn both it and the lad caught with it in his possession, our head being a 1930s throw-back who still despised the fact that three years earlier he'd been banned from using his impressive collection of canes on miscreants.

It also mentions one of the most famous album covers of my generation, another publication that was carried around school in a brown paper bag lest the Head spot that too - the famous Blind Faith album of a topless young girl, to a 12 year old it was the sort of album that you wanted in your record collection but knew that your mother would never allow it across the threshold, never mind the fact that this was Blind Faith, Eric Clapton, Ginger Baker, Steve Winwood etc, it had a naked young girl on the cover who had tits and everything, never has an album been more admired for its cover than its contents since.

The naked girl with breasts on show on the quite freely available album cover (in almost every record shop window in 1969) was 11 years old, no censorship ever applied.

No-one under the age of 40 years actually understands those times at all.

There were actually cases of people who had taken photographs of their children, naked, being taken to court, IIRC.

I do remember stories of staff in Boots calling the fuzz in in occasion,when they developed films containing pictures of people's children

And not far removed, I remember a case of a woman who had taken photographs at Pompeii and Boots refused to produce prints for her on the grounds that they were 'pornographic'.