Harriet Harman: 'The Daily Mail should be apologising, not me'

Harriet Harman: 'The Daily Mail should be apologising, not me'
Labour deputy leader claims paper's associate editor has admitted she was never an apologist for paedophilia

Harriet Harman has again called on the Daily Mail to "apologise and put the record straight" over its claims she turned a blind eye to a paedophile lobbying group in the 1970s.

The Labour deputy leader and shadow culture secretary said on Wednesday there was no reason to say sorry for working for the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL), after the Mail published a series of stories about the group's links to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) between 1975 and 1983.

She said she had never met PIE's former chairman Tom O'Carroll, who challenged the idea in an interview on Tuesday night that he was sidelined from 1976.

He said PIE was tolerated in the NCCL because it was among the "radical and liberal forces" in the organisation that the ambitious politicians could not afford to alienate.

Harman told reporters outside the Oxford Media Convention on Wednesday: "That is absolutely not true.

"PIE were a loathsome organisation and in 1976 NCCL took them on and pushed them to the margins.

"That was the case before I actually went to work for NCCL.

"I never even met Tom O'Carroll, I had never done any work with what was called the gay rights committee at that time which he sat on. He had no influence over my work at all."

Harman said: "I absolutely object to the suggestion that I was ever an apologist for paedophilia or Tom O'Carroll or anybody.

"The Daily Mail associate editor has now admitted that I was not an apologist for paedophilia and they got that wrong. It's the Daily Mail that should be apologising, not me.

"As far as Tom O'Carroll, a man I had never met and [who] was subsequently convicted of paedophilia, commenting on what my view was about my career, I hope you will take it from me not him."

Harman was given a warm round of applause by TV industry delegates when she repeated her call for the Mail to apologise from the conference stage.

Asked about the renewal of the BBC's royal charter and licence-fee settlement, Harman said the corporation should not be burdened with the cost of subsidising free licence fees for the over-75s, estimated at £600m.

"The latest thing appears to be the idea the BBC should take responsibility for paying for free TV licences for over 75s," she said.

"If there's going to be a policy towards the cost of living crisis for people in older years, it is not the BBC's responsibility to do that, any more than it is for the licence fee-payer in Ealing to pay for something that is very important but is broadcast in Damascus [by the World Service]."

She said it was crucial for the future integrity of the licence fee and charter renewal that we "do not give into these temptations" to find more things out of the licence fee.

Harman said there should be a "proper process which allows the public to be included" not the "behind closed doors fix" of 2010, which saw the BBC take on a range of new funding responsibilities including the World Service.

Harman said she supported the licence fee, saying "if there's a better way of funding the BBC I certainly haven't heard of it".

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/feb/26/harriet-harman-daily-mail-apologising-paedophilia

I hope she sues the ass off the RW scum rag!

    

So do I. Think it is all going to backfire on them though, like the articles about Milliband Snr, because they have now given Tom Watson a platform with his investigations into PIE.

Sassy wrote:So do I.   Think it is all going to backfire on them though, like the articles about Milliband Snr, because they have now given Tom Watson a platform with his investigations into PIE.

What can be done about them though?

They have been slapped down for their smears and lies in the past, in the litigation courts, but they just carry on regardless.

They need closing down imo. but that will never happen.

All that can be done is keep showing them up for the twisters they are.

We shall see shan't we. I repeat I like her toughing it out she didn't stand against it for career advancement purposes. Sometimes doing the wrong thing catches up with you.

No shame that woman.

You carry on Fred, when even the associate editor now says it was wrong.

Harman's pressure group advertised for members in magazine for paedophiles: New evidence links NCCL to PIE while Harriet was legal chief:

The National Council for Civil Liberties placed a recruitment advert for new members in the house magazine of the notorious Paedophile Information Exchange, it emerged yesterday.

Labour’s deputy leader Harriet Harman and her MP husband Jack Dromey say PIE was banished before she became the NCCL’s legal officer in 1978. But disturbing new evidence contradicts this claim – and reveals further embarrassingly close ties between the NCCL and the paedophile group campaigning to legalise sex with children.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2568850/Harmans-pressure-group-advertised-members-magazine-paedophiles-New-evidence-links-NCCL-PIE-Harriet-legal-chief.html

I love this keep it coming Harriet see how well it plays out with the public. Same old record sassy haven't you another one. Defend the indefensible that's my girl.

The paper is pure sleaze; why the dimwits of society continue to credit it is beyond me (though I hear it is given away sometimes)

OMG she actually said that?

I just can not believe the gall of the woman!

So she is claiming that PIE was marginalized before she worked for the NCCL in 1978 - but there is clear evidence that the NCCL were advertising and promoting themselves in the official PIE magazine in 1979.

Anyone want to tell me how much knowledge a legal officer has (in an organization with around 12 employees at the time) of where advertising takes place?

Also if NCCL had marginalized PIE why on earth would they want to advertize in their magazine in the first place?

Eilzel wrote:The paper is pure sleaze; why the dimwits of society continue to credit it is beyond me (though I hear it is given away sometimes)

Probably because they have pictures of the actual magazine with the actual advert in - who is really sleazy the organization that advertizes in a paedophiles magazine or the newspaper that writes a story about it?

the mail is the second largest seller [the sun is first] in the uk why some of you are allways running it down is beyond me.is it because it's a tory paper?

p.s.go buy the mirror if you want to read bullshit!

Eilzel wrote:The paper is pure sleaze; why the dimwits of society continue to credit it is beyond me (though I hear it is given away sometimes)

I never believe what papers say unless they post some sort of proof. In this case the Mail's articles have contained documentary evidence of all it says. The only sleaze is the PIE and the perverts who supported it.

.

The evidence is clear that the Mail targeted HH primarily because she is the Labour deputy leader in the same way they targeted Ed Milliband last year.
Balls will be next.
It is part of their agenda ( possibly driven by Dave and his spin doctors) to foster mistrust in Labour in the run up to the GE.
No doubt if the Mirror attacked senior tories in the same manner, the rw'ers heee would be up in arms, those on flop would apoplectic.
The Miliband saga added a few % onto the Labour lead, it is all unravelling for the Mail since the associate editor has admitted their mistake. this will add a few more votes.
Ed and HH must remain statesmanlike during these attacks

The problem is not that the Mail is targeting because you are almost certainly right there

The problem is that the mail has real ammunition to target with - and that said ammunition is being strengthened by the attempts to deny it exists.

Handy Andy wrote:The evidence is clear that the Mail targeted HH primarily because she is the Labour deputy leader  in the same way they targeted Ed Milliband last year.
Balls will be next.
It is part of their agenda ( possibly driven by Dave and his spin doctors) to foster mistrust in Labour in the run up to the GE.
No doubt if the Mirror attacked senior tories in the same manner, the rw'ers heee would be up in arms,  those on flop would apoplectic.
The Miliband saga added a few % onto the Labour lead, it is all unravelling for the Mail since the associate editor has admitted their mistake. this will add a few more votes.
Ed and HH must remain statesmanlike during these attacks

pmsl

Handy Andy wrote:The evidence is clear that the Mail targeted HH primarily because she is the Labour deputy leader  in the same way they targeted Ed Milliband last year.
Balls will be next.
It is part of their agenda ( possibly driven by Dave and his spin doctors) to foster mistrust in Labour in the run up to the GE.
No doubt if the Mirror attacked senior tories in the same manner, the rw'ers heee would be up in arms,  those on flop would apoplectic.
The Miliband saga added a few % onto the Labour lead, it is all unravelling for the Mail since the associate editor has admitted their mistake. this will add a few more votes.
Ed and HH must remain statesmanlike during these attacks

It's called politics dear. Look at all the dirt that's been scoured out about UKIP. But whatever, facts are facts and can't be denied. I can't imagine the outrage you and your cronies would be spitting if the same evidence had been produced against Tory MPs!!

Nicko the sales figures of the DM and Sun no more imply they are higher quality in their field than McDonalds and Coca Cola are in theirs- they are just cheaper and appeal to people base satisfaction.

Eilzel wrote:Nicko the sales figures of the DM and Sun no more imply they are higher quality in their field than McDonalds and Coca Cola are in theirs- they are just cheaper and appeal to people base satisfaction.

Again your problem in this case is not the quality of the Mail or its motivations - the problem is that its evidence is sound and clear.

Even the crappiest of news organs gets it right once in while.

It has always been said put a donkey up as a Labour candidate in labour wards and they'll get in. I never thought that would extend to Paedo sympathisers or apologists.

I don't think most people will think Harman is at all sorry.

kevins58 wrote:It has always been said put a donkey up as a Labour candidate in labour wards and they'll get in. I never thought that would extend to Paedo sympathisers or apologists.

I don't think most people will think Harman is at all sorry.

ARE you Kevin 56's brother?   

eddie wrote:

kevins58 wrote:It has always been said put a donkey up as a Labour candidate in labour wards and they'll get in. I never thought that would extend to Paedo sympathisers or apologists.

I don't think most people will think Harman is at all sorry.

ARE you Kevin 56's brother?   

I am his long lost sister.