Should Harriet Harman apologise?

Unnecessary.

That was a mean thing to say to nonu whenim64.

But, bags members of PIE were busy abusing children and gaining a platform to try to legitimise the harm they were doing, at the time HH was on the exec of NCCL. They weren't hidden like priests - they were abusing and taking to the streets to advertise it, albeit calling it 'boy love.' Paedophile rings with offenders like Sidney Cooke, involved in the murder of Jason Swift, were active members of PIE and close to Tom O'Carroll. Politicians who are now expecting that knock on the door were active membersof PIE - the same politicians alleged to be involved with North Wales care homes and the Elm Guest House abuse of children. It was known in the 70s and early 80s, publicised in newspapers and the NCCL was being dragged through the mud. I don't think for a moment that HH was complicit in the harm done to children, but by refusing to take a stand or acknowledge when asked throughout the following years, she's dug herself a bloody big hole.

If successive popes and bishops can be called to account for not acting on information that was readily available to them, and known to the public, I don't think it's too much to expect HH and co to have taken a stand then and now, especially when they have the advantage of legal training. I now wonder whether her loyalty to other politicians, or anxiety about her future in a Labour cabinet, is compromising her preparedness to speak like Shami Chakrabati and Patricia Hewitt.

By the way, this doesn't mean I endorse the way that the Daily Mail has gone about it. I find them hypocritical and agree with HH - who would take lessons from them?

missed out a 'did'

Good point, when, but I'm not sure the two are really parallel. I accept the ressemblance but in the case of the bishops (and the pope), the problem was that actual abuse to children was not reported. The link between the PIE and NCCL was not like that. PIE was, naively, seen as a group fighting for civil liberties. We now see that this was the wrong way to view it and we now know that some of its members have been convicted of being paedophiles.

What the bishops did was (is) criminal. What HH and other officers of NCCL was not criminal. This is a huge difference.

Do you mind, nonu? We're in the middle of a debate about politicians taking responsibility regarding child abusers!

Speclally for Jingle ,
daffodil]
laugh &

Not so much the apology now - it would be disingenuous at this late stage, but more an acknowledgement that not speaking out to distance herself from PIE when the association was proved years ago. As Patricia Hewitt says, it was naive at the time - PIE was being exposed regularly, yet allowed to stay with NCCL. Harriet Harman and the rest of the executive committee didn't act when they could have done.

In the same way the bishops did not act to expose and remove abusing priests........? The bishops did not cause direct harm to children, but by not acting, it was perpetuated.

If HH does now "apologise" (for what?), will people be satisfied? I think not. They'll just carry on criticising her for not apologising sooner or they'll find something else she 'should' be apologising for.

What good has Hewitt's apology done to anyone or anything? How has it improved things for people atrisk from paedophiles? It hasn't.

Attitudes have changed and people's understanding has increased during the last forty years because of an improvement in ethical standards (achieved through education; NB: education, not schooling), not apologies.

She must be preparing for St David' Day jingls. Would you like a Welsh cake? Can we have a welsh cake smiley please?

Nonu can't you give up on the yellow windmills?

had more of a chance

She had a totally different role in the organisation than Harman did. And she was there earlier, probably at the time PIE joined. And she's more of a chance to prepare a carefully worded statement.

Yes, that looks like something Harriet Harman could have done when asked the first time.

Right on Lily !

Absolutely! Although she's had plenty of time to prepare it, she can't have been 'away' beyond the reach of the internet.

That's the way to do it! www.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/news/uk-politics-26376028

I don't remember either, except Mary Whitehouse's name, but I was quite young at the time.

I think hindsight actually is a wonderful thing to learn from. Understanding often slips into place with hindsight to help it along.

How did I come to miss absolutely everything that was going on in the seventies?! I don't remember any of this at all.

As I remember, it tended to be headlined in the People and News of the World.

Sarcasm miceElf
(Lowest form of wit I know)
I do love your name

Evidence Rosequartz?

They were probably exposed in the DM (I do remember a lot of publicity against their beliefs at the time particularly as 2 X DC were very young at the time).
But that wouldn't count would it, because it would have been dismissed as sensationalist dirt-digging.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Heyho , each to their own I say , gotta go , hungry husband to feed !

Maybe you didn't Nonu, but I think a lot of people were alienated by her simplistic, moralistic stance on things. A lot of people are speaking up "these days", but as ever, they face the same kind of derogatory response that Mary Whitehouse did.