To wonder why no one seems bothered by links to labour MPs + paedophile rights organisation?

[starlady]

The Mail has published new claims about Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt supporting The paedophile information exchange. Thought it was a rehash of an old story, but I've looked at the evidence published, and it looks as if harriet etc do have some explaining to do. I won't link to the Mail, but the Guardian gives a more nuanced point of view here

www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/feb/20/dailymail-harrietharman
What I'm finding puzzling is twitter is not bothered! And I haven't seen anything on mumsnet. Isn't anyone bothered? No wonder jimmy Saville et al got away with their actions. I am a labour voter myself, so I'm not trying to be partisan and stir up trouble, but the silence on this disturbs me.

Yes, because nothing advances your career more that being an apologist for paedophiles.........

But you confidently asserted that she is someone who put the progression of her career before the welfare of children and someone who did nothing to kick this vile group to the kerb and shut their platform down when she joined the NCCL.

Surely this is based on something factual, for example evidence that HH became aware of the affiliation and decided to ignore it knowing the nature of PIE. I mean you surely haven't just plucked your assertion out of the air have you?

Lets hope not, lets hope she's booted out of the Labour party before we end up with another 5 years of Tory rule.

From the BBC .....

*In August 1983 a Scottish headmaster, Charles Oxley, handed over a dossier about PIE to Scotland Yard after infiltrating the group, the Glasgow Herald wrote. He said the group had about 1,000 members.

But the NCCL continued to defend having PIE as a member. As late as September 1983, an NCCL officer was quoted in the Daily Mail saying the group was campaigning to lower the age of consent to 14. "An offiliate [sic] group like the Paedophile Information Exchange would agree with our policy. That does not mean it's a mutual thing and we have to agree with theirs."*

Maybe HH had absolutely no idea what PIE was about and that the NCCL were publicly defending having them as a member until 1983, now she knows, why not apologise.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-26352378

It was impossible to be involved in the women's movement in the 70s and 80s and not know what PIE was all about. They were very active, and very vocal, and very visible.

The Spare Rib archives would be a good place to look for further info.

Lol, You confidently asserted

Nope, must have missed that bit...... I think i used the phrase in my personal view. Teensy weensy difference in phrasing dont you think!

'Yes, because nothing advances your career more that being an apologist for paedophiles.........hmm'

I note your irony - but actually Mantorna what we're learning is that in some political circles in the 70's, apparently it did.

From the evidence we have been presented with so far, what MsCuddy said seems likely - she was neutral as a career move. I know she did later fight for women and children. I hope the latter part of HH's career truly represents who she is.

It's time for HH to dig into the archives like the Mail has been doing, and come up with some other evidence to negate what is being said.

I should probably qualify that as "the women's movement in London" - I can't speak for the rest of the country, although as I say, there were plenty of publications covering it which will have been circulated nationally.

Yes, exactly, OP. It did you no harm at all to be seen as a radical.

I think i used the phrase in my personal view

I see. So you're happy to have personal views that aren't based on facts and evidence. It's one way of simplifying the complexities of life I suppose.

Absolutely nauticant, the days of everyone being told what to think are long gone, thank Goodness.

We all get to have our own personal views in 2014, its liberating

AND we're allowed to express them!! Hooray!

oh the irony.

Please will somebody tell me what Harman did that she should apologise for?

Well, see, nearly 40 years ago, there were these paedos right, and there was also HH, and they were indirectly linked in a way that we ought not to be very specific about, and because she's a bad lot, well, she should apologise and retire from public life.

The longer she toughs this out the worse she looks. Alienating lots of potential Labour voters with her attitude. well done Harman. You are a gift to the Tories even if they're not saying much.

but what is she toughing out?

what would you have her say? i'm sorry that i worked for an organisation decades ago that allowed PIE, who my own husband robustly defended the organisation against years before i even went to work there. would that do it?

or i'm sorry that i thought it best to ignore a tabloid rags latest campaign of smear and innuendo against me rather than be bullied instantly into defending myself against the same bully that's been out for me for years now?

or i'm sorry for existing and you not liking me and not be willing to fall on my sword because an association i worked for decades ago was associated tenuously with PIE, i thought the fact my own husband had struck out at them years before i even went to work there might be enough but apparently i should have not gone and worked for a cause i believed in of increasing human rights because the dm would use it against me decades later as proof i was some kind of paedophile enabler?

honestly i'd love to hear the exact words people would like her to use.

let's face it there aren't 'potential' labour voters - there are those who would want this crazy eugenics style govt to have another term and those who wouldn't. oh and a few scaries who are daft enough to vote ukip.

i think the last election will have simplified voting to which is lesser evil and don't be fooled by those third wheels claiming to have ideals and be different.

what Harman did that she should apologise for

She accepted a job with an organisation that officially, at the time she joined, supported lowering or abolishing the age of consent, opposed the law of incest and was of the view that, "Childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult result in no identifiable damage".

Having said that, this is not, in my view, a scandal as there is no apparent continuity between that and her current position. If she had been a member of the BNP and now supported curbs on immigrants there would be continuity. But she has campaigned on behalf of the victims of rape and child abuse. So, even if she actively campaigned on behalf of PIE in the late 1970s (and I haven't seen any suggestions she did), the worst that could be said is that she has recognised the error of her ways.

I suspect there would have been a lot more coverage if she had been a Tory. And I think she has handled it badly. But, although she could perhaps apologise, I don't think this is a scandal.

those who would want this crazy eugenics style govt

Not in any way demonstrating political bias!

I think SelectAUserName's post is spot on.

Ironic, isn't it, that what is being highlighted on this thread is the awful ways in which young girls get preyed upon, then and now. Really, as someone who hit puberty in the 70s, I feel the whole of society owes me an apology . Yet the public figure getting scapegoated for this is one who has actually dedicated her life to fighting for women and children...

Are there other people involved who are now bus drivers, or councillors, or lawyers or SAHPs who should be apologising?

It could be huge numbers of people who should apologise*. Since this is probably too many to be handled efficiently, the Daily Mail have stepped up to the plate and will be identifying for us those individuals who need to be removed from public life.

It's going to be great.

• That is, anyone who can be shown to have an indirect link to a paedophile even if they didn't lobby for them/sympathise with their aims.

Has the Queen apologised for knighting Jimmy Saville yet?

prh47 - no actually it's not political bias, it's moral bias. my point is that it's been reduced to morality rather than party politics. do you want to see terminally ill people homeless or not for example? my point is that you won't have to be pro labour to vote labour at the next election you'll just have to be mortified by the heartless battering of the vulnerable that has gone on during the last four years and the illusion of voting for the party you want rather than using your vote to prevent further evil will be gone for many.