Should Harriet Harman apologise?

Ana, yes I know Pie campaigned for that but Harriet campaigned for the lowering of age for homosexuals, these two separate campaigns have been fused by some

This analysis is a good one

www.brotherivo.com/blog/2014/02/ms-harman-let-me-help-you-being-human-isnt-easy/

"Brother Ivo" is not saying anything new is he? And he is assuming wrong doing on HH' s part. He should n't be doing that.

Harriet Harman says this, according to article in Independent:

It centres on NCCL’s decision to give the paedophile rights group "affiliate" status in 1975 and to lobby Parliament the following year for the age of consent to be lowered.

Ms Harman, who has accused the Mail of running a politically-motivated smear campaign, joined the NCCL two years later.

"It is not the case that my work when I was at NCCL was influenced by PIE, was apologising for paedophilia, or colluding with paedophilia - that is an unfair inference and it's a smear."

Asked why she would not say it had been wrong, she told the programme: "Because they were challenged and they were pushed aside from their views having any influence on NCCL."

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/would-you-take-lessons-from-the-daily-mail-harriet-harman-hits-back-as-row-over-paedophilia-group-allegations-escalates-9152122.html

What she says there makes sense to me and seems perfectly reasonable. It doesn't look as if she has anything to apologise for. The DM just loves muckraking.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eBT6OSr1TI

The question is not about the DM's motives but about whether what they are saying is true. Shami Chakravati, as several other people have pointed out, immediately acknowledged the truth of the accusations and admitted NCCL had made a serious mistake. No one is criticising her. HH may be a good thing and may have adopted a number of admirable campaigns but that doesn't make her right in this matter and it doesn't make the DM wrong. Do we want senior politicians who find it impossible to change their views or admit they were wrong?

Thanks for the link, * phoenix*

I haven' t seen any evidence she has done anything wrong. Where is the evidence that she was on the side of these people? Or that she agreed with their views? Or that she was wanting the age of consent lowered to ten? She says she hardly had anything to do with them. I thought she actually worked on the Child Protection Bill.

She would never have sided with paedophiles!

Sorry if I'm being dense, but why does all this matter NOW, ~forty years on?

Did PIE have any discernible influence on legislation back then? All that's been mentioned, unless I've missed something, is that they paid an affiliation sub but that they had no influence.

I guess you have to judge the character of someone who could one day be deputy prime minister.

Although I don't think for one moment that's what the Mail is trying to do.

You're welcome Lilygran must admit I was a tad worried that I might be shot down in flames for being flippant, which I didn't mean to be.

I can't get it to play! Sodding internet playing up.

MiceElf, thanks for the link. I wish the 3 people being vilified by the DM had spoken out earlier. They could have added to Shami Chak's statement by agreeing with her wish that NCCL had never had any involvement with PIE

Anyone who googles PIE will find links to other sites. Op Fernbridge, and Op Yewtree are under resourced it seems. PIE and it's alleged links to well known individuals are no doubt part of ongoing cold case type police enquiries. I can't believe HH, PH or JD have anything to fear from that, but possibly other people have. Well, if anything you read on the internet can be believed that is. (Can we believe much in the DM? discuss)

What about this then:

'Prominent Tory expresses regret at links to paedophile lobby group, but refuses to apologise!'
(Possible headlines in the Gridiron newspaper.)

Shock horror! Resign you nasty Tory! That is vile!

Right then, just because you agree with someone's politics and are a staunch supporter of their work surely doesn't mean you blindly agree with everything they have said or done or believe they should never apologise for something which was plainly wrong. Nor should you condemn someone just because you disagree with their politics.

I am dismayed by some of the responses on here. (See my post of 9.20 am today if you want to know why)

I cannot understand why the three of them can not apologise and say it was a lack of judgement at the time.

Here is what Caron Lindsay says. I agree with her conclusion that:
"To me, it’s quite clear that this is a typical Fail stitch up. This is a publication that sees politicians they don’t like such as Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and their families as fair game. Harriet Harman made some liberal observations about an illiberal bill being debated in Parliament. At that time, a pretty horrible organisation was affiliated to her employers. There is no relationship between those two facts.

The Fail has managed to target not only someone they’ve loathed for a very long time, but also take a pop at civil liberties, too. It can’t be an accident that this has all come out as NCCL’s successor, Liberty, celebrates its 80th birthday. The Fail is wrong and shouldn’t get away with it."

It's a good blog post and worth reading.

Just because you disapprove of the DM it doesn't make them automatically always wrong. Just because you approve of HH doesn't mean she must always be right. There are issues here which should be discussed and should not be avoided just because you approve of HH and disapprove of the DM. I disapprove of much of what I read in all the media. So I read as much as I can. No-one, even the journos writing in support of HH have denied the facts. Some of the posters on this thread have done so. (Shakes head in despair, retreats to cupboard)

I agree with you, Lilygran. The DM must always be despised and anything it prints must always be suspect, according to many GN members.

I do think they've gone OTT in this case, but as rosequartz said, what would the reaction have been (on here) if it had been three Conservatives in the frame?

In complete agreement with Lilygran and I have contributed to this thread and have no more to say after this post. I read The Guardian and Daily Mail online and have The Telegraph delivered. I don't understand why HH, her husband and PH find it so difficult to apologise? Why is an apology seen as a weakness? An apology and an acknowledgement that you would have done differently with hindsight makes you, in my mind, a more rounded human being.

I also agree with what lily has said about approving/disapproving, etc. I don't approve or disapprove of either HH or the DM. I know the DM is not the most accurate of reporting machines. I know HH is a politician and politicians can be wily beasts. Those are not the points.

It isn't about approval or disapproval. It's about probabilities, and about what makes sense. That blog post makes sense.

The opinion expressed in that blog is spot on IMO, Bags.

It also reinforces the point that HH should have responded to the DM's accusations long before she did, which is what most people are perplexed/annoyed about.

Yes, thanks for the blog link Bags, it's a good summary of the issues.

It seems to me all she campaigned for was the revision of the law on pictures of naked children. Selina Scott would probably be with her in this.

And considering that paintings by Graham Ovenden were still hanging in the Tate until quite recently, the world still hasn't made up its mind about what is indecent and what is not.

It would appear that at the time of her association with NCCL she did not actively promote the vile PIE but NEITHER DID SHE CONDEMN THEM - therein lies the crux of this matter. She has no defense.

Was it her job to condemn them? Did anyone working for NCCL at that time (a) really understand the potential danger of the PIE affiliation, (b) condemn the PIE?

Did anyone not working for the NCCL at the time really understand the potential danger of the PIE affiliation to the NCCL (or anything else) or condemn the PIE?

What actual harm did the PIE affiliation do to anyone or anything because of its affiliation to NCCL?