Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins ago
Will Ms Harman Now Apologise?
57 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
This was discussed on Question Time last night. Elfyn Llwyd MP stated that at that time Ms Harman was a junior lawyer in the NCCL and had no ties to the PIE affiliation and had therefore nothing to apologise for. He also said it was like asking him to apologise for the first world war. The short answer to the OP is NO
I've not really followed this story but it seems to me that unless the paper is claiming they supported a pro paedophilia group knowingly then I'm unsure why they make such a fuss. We can all be wise after the event and if one did the best one could at the time then I thank any apology would be hollow and political only. From the little I know of the issue I'm inclined to think the newspaper is continually banging their drum in the hope it will sell more newspapers alone.
I would be interested to know exactly what you think Ms. Harmon needs to apologise for, and to whom that apology should be directed at?
It was appropriate,particularly with hindsight, for Pat Hewitt to apologise, being the Gen Secretary of the NCCL at the time of PIEs affiliation. It was possibly appropriate for Shami Chakrabarti to apologise, being the Gen. Secretary of Liberty, the organisation which the NCCL became, for similar reasons - as the titular head of the organisations, the buck stops with them.
But Ms. Harmon was appointed after PIEs affiliation; Her work did not involve scrutiny of affiliated organisations - she was the NCCLs legal officer, offering opinion on policy positions.
I think Dromey and other senior executive members, might have more of a case to apologise, rather than Harmon. Dromey himself talks about defeating PIEs odious agenda within NCCL, so why, if their agenda was recognised as being repellant did the NCCL continue to take affiliation money? Why not expel them?
But you might just as well ask for the then Home Secretarys of the day to apologise for not outlawing the organisation. There is even a hint or suggestion that PIE got some kind of government grant money, although that is merely speculation at the moment.
The DM, in the manner of its framing of the headlines and the story, has sought to insinuate that Ms. Harmon was pro-paedophilia or assisted PIE in their paedophilia agenda, which reads to me like a smear campaign - not too dissimilar to the attempted smear on Ed Miliband when labelling his father, Ralph, as a traitor to the country.
It was appropriate,particularly with hindsight, for Pat Hewitt to apologise, being the Gen Secretary of the NCCL at the time of PIEs affiliation. It was possibly appropriate for Shami Chakrabarti to apologise, being the Gen. Secretary of Liberty, the organisation which the NCCL became, for similar reasons - as the titular head of the organisations, the buck stops with them.
But Ms. Harmon was appointed after PIEs affiliation; Her work did not involve scrutiny of affiliated organisations - she was the NCCLs legal officer, offering opinion on policy positions.
I think Dromey and other senior executive members, might have more of a case to apologise, rather than Harmon. Dromey himself talks about defeating PIEs odious agenda within NCCL, so why, if their agenda was recognised as being repellant did the NCCL continue to take affiliation money? Why not expel them?
But you might just as well ask for the then Home Secretarys of the day to apologise for not outlawing the organisation. There is even a hint or suggestion that PIE got some kind of government grant money, although that is merely speculation at the moment.
The DM, in the manner of its framing of the headlines and the story, has sought to insinuate that Ms. Harmon was pro-paedophilia or assisted PIE in their paedophilia agenda, which reads to me like a smear campaign - not too dissimilar to the attempted smear on Ed Miliband when labelling his father, Ralph, as a traitor to the country.
nice to know he cares, this was from a few days ago.
" Nick Clegg has backed the decision of Liberty to apologise for its historic links to a paedophile group in the 1970s – in contrast to Harriet Harman, who worked for the civil liberties organisation at the time.
The deputy prime minister said he "strongly endorsed" the apology from Liberty, formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties which allowed the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) to be an affiliate between 1975 and 1983.
" Nick Clegg has backed the decision of Liberty to apologise for its historic links to a paedophile group in the 1970s – in contrast to Harriet Harman, who worked for the civil liberties organisation at the time.
The deputy prime minister said he "strongly endorsed" the apology from Liberty, formerly known as the National Council for Civil Liberties which allowed the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) to be an affiliate between 1975 and 1983.
Some may have not noticed that the Telegraph report was written by this chap.
*** Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. ***
Who wrote
*** Ever since last week both Harman and Dromey have based their defence on three increasingly spurious arguments. The first was that the whole thing was a “smear” cooked up by The Daily Mail. ***
*** Despite the continued self-righteous pontificating of their supporters – who now appear to include senior representatives of the Hacked Off campaign – that defence has been totally and utterly demolished. The NCCL story was good, legitimate journalism. The fact it has now been covered by all major news outlets (indeed it was first raised by the Telegraph’s own Damian Thompson), coupled with Hewitt’s apology, prove the Mail was right to
print it. ***
*** Dan Hodges is a former Labour Party and GMB trade union official, and has managed numerous independent political campaigns. He writes about Labour with tribal loyalty and without reservation. ***
Who wrote
*** Ever since last week both Harman and Dromey have based their defence on three increasingly spurious arguments. The first was that the whole thing was a “smear” cooked up by The Daily Mail. ***
*** Despite the continued self-righteous pontificating of their supporters – who now appear to include senior representatives of the Hacked Off campaign – that defence has been totally and utterly demolished. The NCCL story was good, legitimate journalism. The fact it has now been covered by all major news outlets (indeed it was first raised by the Telegraph’s own Damian Thompson), coupled with Hewitt’s apology, prove the Mail was right to
print it. ***
I did notice. What's your point, and what has the author of the piece got to do with it?
I ask you again; What do you expect her to apologise for, and to whom? (Beyond what she has already said, which is that it was regrettable for the NCCL to allow PIE to be an affiliate).
And Dan Hodges can make any number of claims because it is a free country and he is entitled to his opinion; but it does not mean that he is right.
Will you be calling on the successive home secretaries around that time to apologise for not outlawing PIE, including Leon Britton in the early 1980s?
I ask you again; What do you expect her to apologise for, and to whom? (Beyond what she has already said, which is that it was regrettable for the NCCL to allow PIE to be an affiliate).
And Dan Hodges can make any number of claims because it is a free country and he is entitled to his opinion; but it does not mean that he is right.
Will you be calling on the successive home secretaries around that time to apologise for not outlawing PIE, including Leon Britton in the early 1980s?
from the viewpoint of 30 years of hindsight, it beggars belief that an organization such as that could operate quite openly. but at the time, its chairman, tom O'Carroll, was something of a celebrity. notwithstanding brushes with the law, the intelligentsia of the time were quick to defend him, calling his convictions harsh, misplaced and asserting he was only guilty of campaigning for a law change.
different times.
different times.
.All this is a bit witch-hunty
or recall when my co-religionists (RCs) used to get hoary old Protestants to say how bad heretics they were and then they burnt them anyway !
Do I feel obliged to apologise for their obvious excesses ( I want to reassure everyone that burning for heresy is not top of my political agenda ) -not an awful lot...
or recall when my co-religionists (RCs) used to get hoary old Protestants to say how bad heretics they were and then they burnt them anyway !
Do I feel obliged to apologise for their obvious excesses ( I want to reassure everyone that burning for heresy is not top of my political agenda ) -not an awful lot...
Who does she apologise to?....it doesn't really matter as the majority of the electorate, unlike the "heavies" of AB, are not interested in the intellectual minutiae of the problem.
All they know is that she was involved in an organisation that was associated with a paedophile group that wanted to lower the age of consent and if she had apologised from the start, it would have gone away.
All they know is that she was involved in an organisation that was associated with a paedophile group that wanted to lower the age of consent and if she had apologised from the start, it would have gone away.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Crosswords15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles17 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.