Why will they not apologize?

OK I dont know whether this should go in News, Crime or Politics so if Ben wishes to move it thats fine.

In the 1970s and 80s there was an organization PIE seeking to legalize and legitimize sexual activity with children.

There was also at that time a human rights pressure group called National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) which went on to become the respected group Liberty of today. NCCL acted as a central exchange for several smaller specific agenda pressure groups including PIE and would actively campaign on their behalf. NCCL granted PIE associate status with themselves.

3 of todays senior Labour members held senior positions in NCCL during the 1970s/80s when NCCL was actively campaigning on behalf of PIE for such law changes as the lowering of the age of consent and abolition of incest as a crime. It went as far as to file a submission to Parliament claiming that ‘childhood sexual experiences, willingly engaged in, with an adult, result in no identifiable damage’

Today the police are investigating PIE as evidence has come to light they were actively abusing children while associates of NCCL.

A former head of the polices Paedophile squad has called on the 3 senior Labour members who were senior members of NCCL to apologize for the mistake of NCCL and themselves supporting PIE - to acknowledge and recognize that they got it wrong as such a public statement would be of help to the many victims of child abuse especially those that suffered at the hands of PIE.

However these 3 people have so far refused to apologize or even admit it was anything to do with them despite there being clear evidence including documents bearing their names and signatures. One even claims that it is lies they were anything to do with it.

Why will these people not apologize? They are not accused of having anything direct to do with abuse just of mistakenly supporting the groups seeking to legitimize sex with children - yet they will not admit to their mistake? What can they possibly gain by refusing to admit they got it wrong?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563377/Now-say-sorry-Ex-Yard-chief-calls-Labour-trio-admit-backing-paedophilia-huge-mistake.html

Because they still believe it's ok!

They cant apologise because that would be an admission of guilt.
They will be thinking of possible legal proceedings

So much that we are never told. So much shit hide in this sick and evil word.

And you're wondering why there's no apology?

who was the gay campaigner shouting foir lower age of consent for homosexuals.?

NemsAgain wrote:They cant apologise because that would be an admission of guilt.
They will be thinking of possible legal proceedings

No it wouldnt - it would be a case of "we were young and idealistic and mistaken in our support for that group".

There is no accusation of the individuals taking part in abuse just of them allowing the group to associate with theirs.

I mean Liberty and its head who was only a child themselves when all this was taking place has already apologized for the NCCLs support of PIE as an organization - and that was for before they had any responsibility for the organization, so why cannot the individuals who did have responsibility for the organization at the time not make the same apology.

heavenly father wrote:who was the gay campaigner shouting foir lower age of consent for homosexuals.?

I think that was the Stonewall bloke Tatchell?? Not sure he got into trouble writing about under age boys.

sphinx wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:They cant apologise because that would be an admission of guilt.
They will be thinking of possible legal proceedings

No it wouldnt - it would be a case of "we were young and idealistic and mistaken in our support for that group".

There is no accusation of the individuals taking part in abuse just of them allowing the group to associate with theirs.

I mean Liberty and its head who was only a child themselves when all this was taking place has already apologized for the NCCLs support of PIE as an organization - and that was for before they had any responsibility for the organization, so why cannot the individuals who did have responsibility for the organization at the time not make the same apology.

They are doing great damage to the party just as we are putting a clear margin between us and the Tories. The trouble is Harriet Harmon is too high up to dump her if she stays it hurts and if she is fired it hurts. Ed has a real problem to solve make no mistake.

Harriett Harmen and co the ones who are so labour nad for the country............

everything they do is for us......................

remember the last GE...... jack Dromey HH's hubby got selected as the candidate in an all female selection list.

They will go to any length to protect and preserve their life style.

Denial

Phoenix wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No it wouldnt - it would be a case of "we were young and idealistic and mistaken in our support for that group".

There is no accusation of the individuals taking part in abuse just of them allowing the group to associate with theirs.

I mean Liberty and its head who was only a child themselves when all this was taking place has already apologized for the NCCLs support of PIE as an organization - and that was for before they had any responsibility for the organization, so why cannot the individuals who did have responsibility for the organization at the time not make the same apology.

They are doing great damage to the party just as we are putting a clear margin between us and the Tories. The trouble is Harriet Harmon is too high up to dump her if she stays it hurts and if she is fired it hurts. Ed has a real problem to solve make no mistake.

The thing is I would expect party supporters and ordinary members to demand and pressurise something be done. Why would anyone want to be associated with people who cannot admit they made a mistake - especially such mistake on such a foul subject? The refusal to apologise can only suggest that these people either still hold the same opinions or have deeper things to hide and I would expect that to make them unelectable but the Labour party obviously does not think so and what does that say about Labour supporters?

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology. That's what Labour MP Tom Watson has been calling for and it doesn't just cover the activities of just these three. It's far wider than that and it goes back almost 30 years right to heart of the Thatcher government and what went on at the Elm Guest House in London.

I'll expect more than just apologies from anyone involved in these sick activities. I''l expect resignations and prosecutions.

IN fact, I'll start a new thread on the subject because it involves more than just these three

Good idea, I notice the Mail dropped the one about the Tory government woman actually taking part.

Irn Bru wrote:If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology. That's what Labour MP Tom Watson has been calling for and it doesn't just cover the activities of just these three. It's far wider than that and it goes back almost 30 years right to heart of the Thatcher government and what went on at the Elm Guest House in London.

I'll expect more than just apologies from anyone involved in these sick activities. I''l expect resignations and prosecutions.

IN fact, I'll start a new thread on the subject because it involves more than just these three

Good evening Sir

These rumours and discussions have been around for years. Political rumours are normally only started by fact. The length of time these rumours have been around and not been stullified nor any legal case mounted in the past says to me case to answer.

Irn Bru wrote:If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology. That's what Labour MP Tom Watson has been calling for and it doesn't just cover the activities of just these three. It's far wider than that and it goes back almost 30 years right to heart of the Thatcher government and what went on at the Elm Guest House in London.

I'll expect more than just apologies from anyone involved in these sick activities. I''l expect resignations and prosecutions.

IN fact, I'll start a new thread on the subject because it involves more than just these three

No this subject is specifically about the 3 where there is clear documentary evidence that they made the most almighty mistake in allowing the organisation they were senior in to be taken in by a bunch of abusers.

Their names and signatures on are on documents - all that is being asked here is these 3 admit they cocked up.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology. That's what Labour MP Tom Watson has been calling for and it doesn't just cover the activities of just these three. It's far wider than that and it goes back almost 30 years right to heart of the Thatcher government and what went on at the Elm Guest House in London.

I'll expect more than just apologies from anyone involved in these sick activities. I''l expect resignations and prosecutions.

IN fact, I'll start a new thread on the subject because it involves more than just these three

No this subject is specifically about the 3 where there is clear documentary evidence that they made the most almighty mistake in allowing the organisation they were senior in to be taken in by a bunch of abusers.

Their names and signatures on are on documents - all that is being asked here is these 3 admit they cocked up.

Please see my previous reply...........................................

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology. That's what Labour MP Tom Watson has been calling for and it doesn't just cover the activities of just these three. It's far wider than that and it goes back almost 30 years right to heart of the Thatcher government and what went on at the Elm Guest House in London.

I'll expect more than just apologies from anyone involved in these sick activities. I''l expect resignations and prosecutions.

IN fact, I'll start a new thread on the subject because it involves more than just these three

No this subject is specifically about the 3 where there is clear documentary evidence that they made the most almighty mistake in allowing the organisation they were senior in to be taken in by a bunch of abusers.

Their names and signatures on are on documents - all that is being asked here is these 3 admit they cocked up.

Apologies are not enough.I said.....

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No this subject is specifically about the 3 where there is clear documentary evidence that they made the most almighty mistake in allowing the organisation they were senior in to be taken in by a bunch of abusers.

Their names and signatures on are on documents - all that is being asked here is these 3 admit they cocked up.

Apologies are not enough.I said.....

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology.

You do realize that there are signatures on documents? What more investigation into these 3 is needed?

Proving that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 others are guilty of worse does not excuse or reduce the seriousness of the mistakes of these 3.

As the evidence stands at the moment all these 3 were guilty of is a colossal error of judgement - it was a long time ago and for these 3 an apology is all that is needed. As it stands they did not abuse, they did not finance abuse, they were taken in by a group trying to equate their position to that of other minorities and allowed that group to become an associate while giving that group the same service they gave other associates.

Their apology would clear the way for further deeper proper investigation - the longer they refuse the more difficult it is for investigations to proceed.

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Apologies are not enough.I said.....

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology.

You do realize that there are signatures on documents?  What more investigation into these 3 is needed?

Proving that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 others are guilty of worse does not excuse or reduce the seriousness of the mistakes of these 3.

As the evidence stands at the moment all these 3 were guilty of is a colossal error of judgement - it was a long time ago and for these 3 an apology is all that is needed.  As it stands they did not abuse, they did not finance abuse, they were taken in by a group trying to equate their position to that of other minorities and allowed that group to become an associate while giving that group the same service they gave other associates.

Their apology would clear the way for further deeper proper investigation - the longer they refuse the more difficult it is for investigations to proceed.

They might not have financed the abuse but their names bankrolled the group by association......

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

No this subject is specifically about the 3 where there is clear documentary evidence that they made the most almighty mistake in allowing the organisation they were senior in to be taken in by a bunch of abusers.

Their names and signatures on are on documents - all that is being asked here is these 3 admit they cocked up.

Apologies are not enough.I said.....

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology.

You do realize that there are signatures on documents?  What more investigation into these 3 is needed?

Proving that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 others are guilty of worse does not excuse or reduce the seriousness of the mistakes of these 3.

As the evidence stands at the moment all these 3 were guilty of is a colossal error of judgement - it was a long time ago and for these 3 an apology is all that is needed.  As it stands they did not abuse, they did not finance abuse, they were taken in by a group trying to equate their position to that of other minorities and allowed that group to become an associate while giving that group the same service they gave other associates.

Their apology would clear the way for further deeper proper investigation - the longer they refuse the more difficult it is for investigations to proceed.

You may be satisfied with an apology - I'm not. The Daily Mail should be required to hand over ALL the information they have to the police to determine whar other information they may have on this group and exactly what involvement these three may have been involved in.

Trial by the Daily Mail just isn't enough.

gerber wrote:

sphinx wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:

Apologies are not enough.I said.....

If these people have been actively involved in promoting all that stuff then it should be investigated properly and not because the Daily Mail are not getting a response to their phone calls and their public demand for an apology.

You do realize that there are signatures on documents?  What more investigation into these 3 is needed?

Proving that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 others are guilty of worse does not excuse or reduce the seriousness of the mistakes of these 3.

As the evidence stands at the moment all these 3 were guilty of is a colossal error of judgement - it was a long time ago and for these 3 an apology is all that is needed.  As it stands they did not abuse, they did not finance abuse, they were taken in by a group trying to equate their position to that of other minorities and allowed that group to become an associate while giving that group the same service they gave other associates.

Their apology would clear the way for further deeper proper investigation - the longer they refuse the more difficult it is for investigations to proceed.

They might not have financed the abuse but their names bankrolled the group by association......

According to the report in the Mirror and what Tom Watson has said the funding of this group may have been wider than what the Mail is reporting.

Bag them all.

Irn Bru wrote:

sphinx wrote:

You do realize that there are signatures on documents?  What more investigation into these 3 is needed?

Proving that 100 or 1000 or 10,000 others are guilty of worse does not excuse or reduce the seriousness of the mistakes of these 3.

As the evidence stands at the moment all these 3 were guilty of is a colossal error of judgement - it was a long time ago and for these 3 an apology is all that is needed.  As it stands they did not abuse, they did not finance abuse, they were taken in by a group trying to equate their position to that of other minorities and allowed that group to become an associate while giving that group the same service they gave other associates.

Their apology would clear the way for further deeper proper investigation - the longer they refuse the more difficult it is for investigations to proceed.

You may be satisfied with an apology - I'm not. The Daily Mail should be required to hand over ALL the information they have to the police to determine whar other information they may have on this group and exactly what involvement these three may have been involved in.

Trial by the Daily Mail just isn't enough.

I totally agree Irn, just the other day an article was published in the DM claiming smoking pot on its own with no other drugs or drink can kill a person as it apparently has taken it's first victim....

After all these years too!

The last paper I would take the word of and I thought the Sun was bad.

Oh for goodness sake - the evidence that the daily mail has are documents available to the public in museum and historic record collections.

The Daily Mail is not on about the criminal elements of the investigations going on the Daily Mail is concerned with the moral fitness of those who would seek to lead us. The Mail is not making any suggestion that these 3 did anything criminal - it is suggesting that over 30 years ago they showed a massive error of judgement and they are challenging these 3 to show that they are aware of the error and have learned from making it.

You can try and muddy the water all you like with the ongoing criminal investigations - that is not the point of either the Mail story or this thread. The point of this thread is a political party that seems to accept its representatives not learning from their mistakes - and that supporters of that party see no problem with this.

To put it at its simplest if you were in a constituency of one of these three if come the next general election they have still not accepted they made a mistake and apologized would you vote for them? Not because of the details of the mistake but because of their refusal to admit the mistake.

The longer they stay stum the more damage to the party Irn Bru. This isn't going away not in the current climate.

The more it is played down the more people can say they are saying Paedophilia isn't a big deal. They are compounding their initial error if error it was.

sphinx wrote:Oh for goodness sake - the evidence that the daily mail has are documents available to the public in museum and historic record collections.

The Daily Mail is not on about the criminal elements of the investigations going on the Daily Mail is concerned with the moral fitness of those who would seek to lead us.  The Mail is not making any suggestion that these 3 did anything criminal - it is suggesting that over 30 years ago they showed a massive error of judgement and they are challenging these 3 to show that they are aware of the error and have learned from making it.

You can try and muddy the water all you like with the ongoing criminal investigations - that is not the point of either the Mail story or this thread.  The point of this thread is a political party that seems to accept its representatives not learning from their mistakes - and that supporters of that party see no problem with this.

To put it at its simplest if you were in a constituency of one of these three if come the next general election they have still not accepted they made a mistake and apologized would you vote for them?  Not because of the details of the mistake but because of their refusal to admit the mistake.

So the Daily Mail are only interested in these 3 and not in any others that have been involved in all this stuff because the links to this group PIE appear to be more widespread than just them? There is a police investigation going on at the moment with hard evidence that Leon Brittain was involved in this as well as some people at the very heart of Thatcher's government.
It's strange that the Tories or the LinDems are not shouting about this from the rooftops which I would suspect is because they all have skeletons in the cupboard.

Do you support Tom Watson's call for action to be taken after 30 years with nothing being done before now about looking deeper into the involvement of people that were at the heart of government and indeed may be still around?

If any individual associated with the PIE group is still in politics they need to be removed.
there are more than enough people ready to be politicians that would show better judgement than these 3, when asking to lead a nation I don't believe in second chances, there is no second chance in most competitive industries.

veya_victaous wrote:If any individual associated with the PIE group is still in politics they need to be removed.
there are more than enough people ready to be politicians that would show better judgement than these 3, when asking to lead a nation I don't believe in second chances, there is no second chance in most competitive industries.

Quite correct Veya. And if these 3 or any others were involved in any way in promoting the views of PIE or being involved in their activities in any way then an apology is not sufficient.

Out they go - all of them

Irn Bru wrote:

veya_victaous wrote:If any individual associated with the PIE group is still in politics they need to be removed.
there are more than enough people ready to be politicians that would show better judgement than these 3, when asking to lead a nation I don't believe in second chances, there is no second chance in most competitive industries.

Quite correct Veya. And if these 3 or any others were involved in any way in promoting the views of PIE or being involved in their activities in any way then an apology is not sufficient.

Out they go - all of them

Agreed out they go

And out they should
but take out who in their downfall.................... The labour party cannot afford that now - it would be the end of them That is where politics as does religion come before all else............. sad but true. Many more of the labour party are behind the main names, probably some big unions ones too, it was a left wing organisation the cost could be one that is too great to comprehend. Which is totally wrong but who will dare to prove otherwise.....The elite will remain the elite even though labour deny they are ...... Bilderberg

NemsAgain wrote:
They cant apologise because that would be an admission of guilt.
They will be thinking of possible legal proceedings

  

TOO TRUE....

AND ~ despite the empty bleating from today's Far_RW idiot box (i.e. Sphinx and Eddie) ~ IT'S NOT up to some random single police officer to come out and demand an apology from three sitting politicians for supposed support for a scumbag perverts' "rights" group some 30+ years ago...

FIRST off, that policeman should be presenting some actual evidence..
SECONDLY, he should be asking a Tory MP to press for an apology later on.
There IS such a thing as "protocols" and a "chain of command" in these matters !

 

gerber wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:
Quite correct Veya. And if these 3 or any others were involved in any way in promoting the views of PIE or being involved in their activities in any way then an apology is not sufficient.

Out they go - all of them

Agreed out they go

And out they should
but take out who in their downfall....................  The labour party cannot afford that now - it would be the  end of them  That is where politics as does religion come before all else.............   sad but true.  Many more of the labour party are behind the main names, probably some big unions ones too, it was a left wing organisation the cost could be one that is too great to comprehend.  Which is totally wrong but who will dare to prove otherwise.....The elite will remain the elite even though labour deny they are ...... Bilderberg

  

THE Police haven't yet even finished their investigations, have they ???

LET ALONE formally reported their findings to the relevant parliamentary committees and Ministers..

AND YET on here we see people already sacking those three suspect MPs (and bringing on three by-elections in the short term..).    ::rambo:: 

AND completely ignoring any Tory involvement at the same time..

SURELY a "Royal Commission" style examination is what's needed there ~ so THEN they can look deeper, AND include those long-rumoured connections over the past 4+ decades, of sympathisers in the British Tory Party, the House of Lords, and among a few of your Judiciary ?   

Beekeeper wrote:

NemsAgain wrote:
They cant apologise because that would be an admission of guilt.
They will be thinking of possible legal proceedings

  

TOO TRUE....

AND ~ despite the empty bleating from today's Far_RW idiot box (i.e. Sphinx and Eddie) ~ IT'S NOT up to some random single police officer to come out and demand an apology from three sitting politicians for supposed support for a scumbag perverts' "rights" group some 30+ years ago...

FIRST off, that policeman should be presenting some actual evidence..
SECONDLY, he should be asking a Tory MP to press for an apology later on.
There IS such a thing as "protocols" and a "chain of command" in these matters !

 

Bee, Patricia Hewitt is no longer an MP and no way is eddie far right or anything like it. She's a thoroughly decent sort who has been on these forums from the very early days of sky and I just wish there were more like her around these parts.

Wrong call I'm afraid.

So I see people are still desperately trying to divert the focus of my questions.

Lets be clear there are at least 2 different areas of this topic - there is PIE, and its funding - which is still being subjected to criminal investigation and which is not what I am trying to focus on. Then there is the role of the NCCL group which went on to become Liberty - and that is what I am focusing on.

As far as I am aware there is no suggestion that the 3 people had any involvement with PIE other than as an associate of NCCL and I am certainly not accusing them of that. I am not suggesting they did anything criminal, or knowingly promoted or enabled criminal activity.

PIE was seeking to have paedophilia treated the same way as homosexuality - NCCL was active in fighting for civil rights across many different areas and was not specific to paedophilia. PIE presented itself as battling for civil rights and was granted associate status.

Should that have happened - No of course not. Was it criminal? No - it was stupid, short sighted, but not criminal. Should those who were stupidly short sighted apologize for their error? Yes. Should they loose their career because of the error? No should they loose their career if they are unable to admit to their error? Probably.

What these 3 did was no different from what the defence teams of accused child abusers do in court when they give them a legal defence - other than the fact that they were not a defence team and had no obligation to defend so doing so was idiotic.

As far as those who actually committed criminal offences against children - they should be locked up and never let out. If the ongoing criminal investigation does find evidence that the three were doing more than just associating their organization with PIE then of course they should be fired and punished - but that should not happen before an investigation has shown they are guilty.

As for evidence - the evidence of their association is clear matter of public record. It is not a police matter but a public one for which it is reasonable to ask for an apology.

I think they won't apologise for the same reason Labour don't apologise about anything else. They simply don't care what the voters think.

It does seem odd that some supporters seem to wish either the bit about these 3 to disappear or for there to be hundreds accused from all parties.

There seems to be an inability to understand that whole breaks down into parts and that individuals have to take their responsibility for the parts even when they are innocent of the whole.