Censored At The Money Pit

Yesterday, I posted this on Mary Honeyball's blog after she dubbed London Tory Euro candidates, Jean-Paul Floru and Syed Kamall, as racist and/or advocating child pornography.

Hairy, please point out which part of the document you linked to advocated relaxation of laws on child pornography?

You made it up, didn't you. Oh yeah, and Kamall didn't write it. You know this yet you try to slur him on the back of it.

Your argument that Floru is racist relies on the same ridiculous premise. That he knows people you consider racist. But then you consider just about everyone either racist or sexist, so that's no surprise. Do you have quick keys for typing such words?

Congratulations on one of the worst pieces of smear campaigning I have ever seen. And worst possible luck for tomorrow.

It now seems to have disappeared.

Hairy's laughable reasoning for her nasty slurs is detailed here.

I am particularly disturbed at her fabricated 'evidence' that Kamall is implicitly in favour of relaxing laws on child pornography because he talked at a libertarian seminar once. Her warped detective work brought her to the conclusion that this obviously indicates that he agrees with a completely different libertarian who wrote a piece on why banning pornography portraying consenting adults is dangerous. There was no mention of child pornography whatsoever. It was a lie by implication.

So I shall pose the question again.

My last comment seems to have disappeared, Mrs Moneyball.

May I ask you again, please? Which part of the article, to which you linked, advocated the relaxation of laws pertaining to child pornography?

I read the entire piece (twice) and I couldn't find it anywhere.

And why do you find it acceptable to link Syed Kamall with child pornography when it is quite clear that the author of the article, and Mr Kamall, are not remotely of that opinion?

Is this not rather tawdry political campaigning?

I don't reckon she will answer that one either but it's worth a shot. Best post it here for posterity before it is similarly airbrushed - a luxury we bloggers have is that Labour can't shred electronic missives (though given a few more years they may think of a virtual way - Hazel Blears was on the case, but the plans will not have been erased entirely from Labour's desire for complete control).

Are we now at the stage with Labour that lies and spin are the preferred method of attack? That their morals have sunk so low that truthful debate is beyond them? Rather an unsubstantiated smear than tackling head-on the truthful policies of their opponents?

This is gutter politics, pure and simple. Getting a lie out as a press release, or by any other means, is more important than telling the electorate the truth. It is how Labour now operate. They pass laws based on fabricated evidence (they have usually paid for the statistics through their vast network of quangoes and state-funded liars), after pretending to consult the public, whilst ignoring, like Moneyball, those who raise dissenting voices.

It's worrying that if, as the tabloids gorily revelled in today, Brown were to be ousted, many would be tempted back to Labour. It really doesn't matter what colour head you have on a pus-filled zit, it's still the same festering, putrid shit beneath it ...

... like trougher Hairy, for example.