Should Harriet Harman apologise?

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.

She would never have sided with paedophiles!

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.

Thanks for the link, * phoenix*

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?

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

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.

"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.

This analysis is a good one

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

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

She instigated our Winter fuel payment!

As I said in my earlier post, you will find that HH will never, ever admit that anything she has done is wrong. If she now backtracks, you will still find her words mealy mouthed.There is something fundamentally wrong with people who can never apologise and at the moment she is a liability to her party.As others say, she is keeping this item in the news.

Actually, he went to gaol en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hayman_(diplomat). It wasn't and isn't illegal to lobby on behalf of paedophiles so PIE weren't doing anything illegal in campaigning, however disgusting the purpose. Only in abusing children.

And it seems that the most notorious member of PIE was one Sir Peter Hayman, long time deputy director of MI6. Never prosecuted. Why?

Tom O'Carroll who was very active in PIE at the time was on Today this morning. He made the point that PIE had support from other NCCL member groups and they had common cause campaigning for a lowering of the age of consent. I suppose what makes me so cross about HH and her ilk is the apparently wholesale acceptance of a package of issues and the unwillingness to debate the implications of adopting some ideological positions. Or to admit you were wrong! Tom O'Carroll was on a number of NCCL committees and said neither HH nor JD nor PH tried to oust him/them. Other people at the time were demonstrating and writing against PIE. The DM, and Private Eye which has been covering this story for years, are quite right to challenge the judgment of our leaders. Would the story have been ignored if it had been a Tory involved?

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/01/zac-goldsmith-nazi-daily-mail_n_4023045.html

No, Anniebach, PIE wanted to get the age of consent lowered for everyone to 10 or 14.

"Her letter claimed that such a law would ‘increase censorship’, and argued that a pornographic picture of a naked child should not be considered indecent unless it could be proven that the subject suffered."
Perhaps 40 years on she could admit that she doesn't believe this any more, or has she already said that?

Perhaps the Daily Mail should start looking at the beam in its own eye.

Wasn't it the DM who backed the Nazis?

Sauce for the goose....

Lilygran , was not the age of consent you speak of related to lowering the age of consent for Homosexuals and not for lowering the age of consent below sixteen ?

Will the Daily Mail now start a campaign attacking every barrister who has defended child abusers in court?

Well Rose if they don"t , they damn well should . Wonder how many lives were ruined by the likes of PIE ?

X post, doesn't do any favours I meant. But you are in danger of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

It may be in the past but the endorsement of PIE could have had enormous danger and ongoing trauma to many children. Or does no-one care about that?

No, it doesn't, but why the intransigence over apologising for a mistake, which is what it was?

And why is P Hewitt hiding behind HH's skirts?

Perhaps the dear old DM just likes running smear campaigns, jings. What a shocking thought! Can't think whence I got such an idea .

I don't think it's doing anyone any favours, raking up the murkiness of the '70s like this. As I think have said before on this thread, the world has moved on since then - in leaps and bounds. Thank goodness.