I have said elsewhere on this thread that my views on HH's performance have nothing to do with liking the DM or disliking her. Of course the DM is playing political games. But HH has not helped matters by trying to dismiss what it said, though true, because she and the Labour Party don't like the Mail. The Mail represents a particular package of right wing views. HH represents a particular package of left wing views. Both are equally blinkered and intransigent.
There are a number of links people have posted to a variety of sources on this thread. I suggest you have a look at some of them. HH hasn't said the DM story isn't true. What she has said (unlike Shami Chakrabarti and Patricia Hewitt) is that it wasn't significant and was nothing to do with her.
I have looked at the links and I've read other things too. It is not at all clear to me what exactly is true and what isn't, so I'm surprised you seem so confident that you know the exact truth. If you do you ought to be able to post it here succinctly and clarify things for the rest of us.
Also, why can't you accept that it was not the same for HH as it was for Hewitt and Chakrabarti? Three different people are going to have three different viewpoints, to have had three different jobs to do within NCCL, and three different memories and interpretations of what was going on.
It is now well beyond the time any apology from HH would have any meaning which is a shame but not surprising. HH was nowhere to be seen when husband Jack Dromey was handed his Labour safe seat. This is the same HH who is in favour of women only short lists but she missed a crucial meeting which decided not to use the women only policy. She has used the nothing to do with her strategy often throughout her career.
"It is now well beyond the time any apology from HH would have any meaning"
Makes one wonder why people carry on nagging, especially as on current showing she wouldn't be believed and whatever she said would be distorted and misinpterpreted.