Should Harriet Harman apologise?

I'm sorry to say but this thread has just totally cemented in my mind that the 'hate' of the Daily Mail is so obvious it clouds any rational judgement by some.

Harman and co have been spoke of for many years over this matter. She is, as has been said, digging a hole for herself. I am pleased Hewitt has now spoken out over this subject and I think she was perfectly rational and showed a sense of decency I for one would expect from any human being irrespective of their politics.

To say she and others in the NCCL possibly did not know what PIE was about is quite ridiculous. At the time I remember how disgusted I was with the whole set up. There were many angry scuffles with them by decent members of the public who considered PIE disgusting and tried to shut down their meetings and existence.

This has surfaced again because of the recent police operations that have taken place concerning historic paedophile allegations. The NCCL and PIE were major players at the time and quite rightly this association has been brought to the fore. About time.

I don't care what party they belong to, who the person is, nor what they are doing now to be frank. If you cannot see that even being in a room with, being connected in any way with paedophiles is abhorrent then I despair to be honest.

This might have been a Daily Mail story but for goodness sake does that have to mean it is a smear campaign. Facts are facts, truth is truth. Goodness knows Harman is no saint and can be as cutting and devious as any other politician or newspaper.

Perhaps the Gingers could call her a rodent, after all she doesn't mind abusing the colour of a persons hair. All in the name of humour you know.

I think it was probably very prevalent, just no talked about as 'not nice'! And therefore people turned a blind eye to it.
I certainly was not aware, but in retrospect, I can now think of many cases where I'm sure it was going on. I was very naive in my 20s.
Doctors were not taught about it or child abuse.

She wasn't INVOLVED with the organisation! The organisation paid an affiliation fee to her employer, NCCL.

Oh it was definitely going on Galen. Long before the seventies. Just not so acknowledged.

Article in Guardian quoting Harman seems to be saying the DM should be apologising, not her.

Ever heard of guilt by association, bags? If you don't do what you can to stop the bad people and you are in a position to do so, you must share some responsibility. As Shami Chakrabati, who wasn't even born when a lot of this was going on, and Patricia Hewitt have recognised. And child abuse was unfortunately just as common in the 1970s but the present public hysteria about it didn't exist and it was very hard for victims to get complaints taken seriously. Like rape and domestic violence. Which is why so many 'historic' accusations are being investigated now.

I'm sorry to say but this thread has just totally cemented in my mind that the 'hate' of the Daily Mail is so obvious it clouds any rational judgement by some.

Harman and co have been spoke of for many years over this matter. She is, as has been said, digging a hole for herself. I am pleased Hewitt has now spoken out over this subject and I think she was perfectly rational and showed a sense of decency I for one would expect from any human being irrespective of their politics.

To say she and others in the NCCL possibly did not know what PIE was about is quite ridiculous. At the time I remember how disgusted I was with the whole set up. There were many angry scuffles with them by decent members of the public who considered PIE disgusting and tried to shut down their meetings and existence.

This has surfaced again because of the recent police operations that have taken place concerning historic paedophile allegations. The NCCL and PIE were major players at the time and quite rightly this association has been brought to the fore. About time, this time however the public are more aware and interested in what was going on.

I don't care what party they belong to, who the person is, nor what they are doing now to be frank. If you cannot see that even being in a room with, being connected in any way with paedophiles is abhorrent then I despair to be honest.

This might have been a Daily Mail story but for goodness sake does that have to mean it is a smear campaign. Facts are facts, truth is truth. Goodness knows Harman is no saint and can be as cutting and devious as any other politician or newspaper.

I think the longer the story has been spoken about the more her own words have been subjected to scrutiny and I don't think she is coming out of this in a good light.

I think her ability to use 3 young girls to try and turn the public in her favour shows exactly how capable she is of using below the belt tactics. What right has she got to display a picture of those poor girls in a manner which implied the photo looked depraved for goodness sake. She deserves what she gets just for being such a hypocrite and once again she showed her poor judgement. I hope those girls or their parents come out and have a go too.

Perhaps the Gingers could call her a rodent, after all she doesn't mind abusing the colour of a persons hair. All in the name of humour you know.

Sorry went for lunch and didn't know I had posted.

Did you read the article, lily? She seems to be categorically denying "association".

Well said, POGS

I did read the article. The DM's motives are quite suspect, as I said before, but that doesn't exonerate HH from hitching her wagon of political ambition to some very dubious causes.

Good post POGS.

At least Pat Hewitt has surfaced and given an apology for asking for the age of consent to be lowered to 10. I have more respect for her now for admitting she was wrong.
The other two have got a way to go yet. Jack Dromey in denial and HH wriggling as usual.
They just make it look as if they are hiding things, even if they are not.

Cannot understand some of the posts on here considering it is supposed to be a site for parents and grandparents.

From today's Telegragh, this time quoting Hewitt "defending" Harman and Dromey:

Miss Harman, who joined NCCL as its legal officer in 1978, has insisted that PIE had been marginalised by the NCCL in 1976, when it “took them on and pushed them to the margins”. Her husband Jack Dromey, an NCCL executive committee member from 1970 to 1979 and now a Labour MP, has said he took on PIE and helped drive them out.
Miss Hewitt defended the couple, saying: "When Jack Dromey, as NCCL chairman in 1976, vigorously opposed PIE at the NCCL AGM, he did so with the full support of the executive committee and myself as general secretary.
"Harriet did not join the NCCL staff until 1978. She was one of two legal officers, neither of whom was a member of the executive committee."

I'm still not seeing the straightforward "guilt" on HH's part that some other posters are seeing.

PIE remained affiliated to the NCCL until around 1983.

But, according to Dromey and Hewitt (and Harman too, I think), had been pushed into the background from 1976. Does anyone know how the affiliation system worked at NCCL? Was it renewed annually or was it that if you affiliated you remained affiliated until further notice?

When was PIE disbanded?

Additionally, lily, so what? Was it Harman's fault that the affiliation remained in place?

What happened to innocent until proved guilty?

I'm puzzled as to why so much is made of the affiliation. My local archery club is affiliated to ArcheryGB and to the Scottish Archery Association. This doesn't give us any power in those organisations.

The Scottish country dancing clubs I belonged to in Oxford were affiliated to the global Royal Scottish Country Dance Society. This gave us one delegate at AGMs and so forth.

I'm wondering now if people are thinking affiliation means more than it does.

Thatbags

Isn't there clear evidence that PIE had not been marginalised in 1976.

What does that mean anyway. It should not have been marginalised it simply should have never been given affiliated status which in turn meant that it was able to lobby parliament and be presumably allowed to have use of or contact with the legal team of the NCCL.

Harman was not a clerk or tea lady she was a legal officer. PIE was a member of the NCCL during her time with the NCCL.

This sorry story is not only about the judgement of Harman and co it is about more than that. The police are looking at historic evidence relating to PIE and it's associates underthe Operation Fernbridge child sex inquiry. This has obviously got to look at the NCCL and it's contact with PIE.

The Home Office is also reported to be looking at possible finances given to PIE from the Labour Party. 'IF and I am careful to say 'IF'' it has received any funding then I would presume it did so through it's association with the NCCL and those closely connected to Labour by being given the outward appearance of being part of the establishment.

At the end of the day whether you were a paedophile in the 70's or a paedophile today there is absolutely no way any person nor 'organisation' should give you the light of day to promote, condone or gain any legal status for having sex with children. It is abhorrent.

What I find astounding are comments such as Patricia Hewitt has made. 'Although the evil of child sexual abuse is 'NOW' properly recognised' WHAT I am sorry but I have always known sex with children was wrong, wrong, wrong.

It sickens me that there is any defence of such behaviour just because it was 'in the past'. Tell that to those who are still suffering from child abuse today, I am sure they will take great comfort from knowing that. Tell that to those who have suffered life long problems because of paedophiles who the likes of the NCCL thought at the time had a right to liberal thought.

Sorry I sound so cross but this is dear to my heart.

Here is HH's statement in response to the DM allegations. It answers some of my questions and it shows her in a good light as a decent woman, not guilty as charged.

Good post again POGS

X posts, pogs. I share your concerns but I still don't think Harman is guilty of supporting paedophiles.

From what I've been reading, Hewitt seems more suspect.

The Sun is claiming to have seen a press release by the NCCL backing the lowering of the age of consent to ten in some cases, and calling for legalisation of incest, which has Hewitt' s name, solely, on it.

Patricia Hewitt is one person who has always seemed a bit "eurgh!" to me. But I know that is just my feeling.

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

HH's response seems be saying it's all the DM's fault, they've always hated her and she's been unfairly accused. At least Pat Hewitt has had the grace to acknowledge the kernel of truth in the DM's report.

I think that just as those who dislike the Daily Mail have been accused of rushing to dismiss anything it says equally those that admire the Daily Mail are unwilling to consider this may be an orchestrated political campaign.

HH is damned if she does apologise (Shock, horror HH supported paedophiles) and damned if she does not (Shock horror HH fails to apologise for being loosely associated with a paedophile organisation)

I cannot imagine anyone supports child abuse other than paedophiles. What I can imagine is that there is /was support for the rule of law to apply equally to all those accused of a crime, including paedophilia. I thought it was under that guise that PIE got itself affiliated to NCCL but do not know that.

I think that when Liberty and Shami Chakrobarti made the public apology statement it should have invited signatures from all those who were part of NCCL at the time to associate themselves with the apology.

If HH joined NCCL 2 yrs after the PIE affiliation and as a junior legal person presumably her only 'crime' is not being assertive enough at the time to speak out. It would have been better for her if she had said sooner that she regretted that NCCL did not end the PIE affiliation.

Hands up those of us who did not always speak up at work when we saw something we did not think was quite right??

We are all guilty by association of something awful I am sure... even if it is just buying something that you suspect has been produced by child labour or in dangerous conditions........

Good points there.