Should Harriet Harman apologise?

I thought Mary Whitehouse made a lot of sense , would not hurt IMO if someone was to speak up these days !
Certainly did not think she was "Batty".

for jingle

Thanks to Mice and When for telling it like it was. As with all political type movements, boundaries were being pushed and occasionally you found yourself linked with something barmy. I left the local women's group because I was so uncomfortable with what I saw as extremist, insensitive and down right silly views expressed by the most powerful women in the group. I didn't want to be associated with it, and found myself a very good women's group instead. I do wish other from the NCCL had spoken out at this before now. As When says, it was public knowledge at the time, and has been the subject of all kind of speculation on the internet for some years.

Well said jingles - takes a decent person to say that

Hattiehelga I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. I thought you were shouting at me, but I don't think you were.

Well said, mice. The fact that "the lines were quite blurred at the time" is what some of the better newspaper articles have pointed out too. Focussing on individuals like HH and heaping blame on them is just silly given that they were part of that time and probably just as unclear about the issues as most other people.

That's so true Whenim. Mary Whitehouse was quite batty in some ways, but sometimes she spoke sense. Tolerance of deviant views and organisations was very common in the 70s when many of us were challenging repressive attitudes and limitations on free speech (censorship in the theatre for example). The question is always where to draw the line, and those lines were quite blurred at the time. Often, it's only by discussion and debate that one's views can be clarified and modified. I've certainly changed my opinions on a number of matters over the years. That's come about by experience, greater knowledge and reading well argued analyses by others.

There were frequent exposés about PIE in the newspapers in the 70s. Mary Whitehouse uncovered a few connections and possible paedophile rings, but she was dismissed because of her moralistic stance.

How do you know she did jinglbellsfrocks - was it really necessary to introduce unwelcome language that adds nothing to sensible debate? Don't bother justifying it; I have no wish to trade blows with you.

Yes, they did. There were demos against PIE speakers at conferences etc and quite a lot of opposition to their activities. I remember the 1970s! Being affiliated to an organisation like NCCL lent them a veneer of respectability and made them look like victims of intolerance. Which they were, I suppose. The question is, how far should one be tolerant and of what? Think of FGM or child marriage. They are widespread, traditional cultural practices. Does that make it OK?

HOW DO YOU KNOW SHE DIDN'T EFFING CONDEMN THEM?

Were you there Hattieh?

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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?

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)

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.

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.

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)

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

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 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.