Strands #301 “Festival Of Lights...
Quizzes & Puzzles12 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.
OK. So what actions of hers is she supposed to be apologising for, beyond what she has already said, which is to express regret that PIE were allowed to affiliate and remain affiliates with the NCCL?
Remember that the organisation has already apologised; Firstly Shami Chakrabarti as current Gen.Sec of Liberty, the organisation into which the NCCL morphed; and more recently Pat Hewitt, the General Secretary at the time this was all going on. So what else are you and the DM expecting Harriet Harman to apologise for?
As to the age of consent; NCCL were very active in reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from the then 21? I think it was, and equalising it with the heterosexual age of consent which was then 16, as it is now. That was a worthy cause. There is and has been an ongoing discussion about the age of consent ever since, and not just here. Whilst 14 might be adjudged too low, under the current law 2 15 year olds, knowing the other was under 16, could technically be adjudged to have broken the law and face a maximum sentence of 5 years which seems wrong to me.
Remember that the organisation has already apologised; Firstly Shami Chakrabarti as current Gen.Sec of Liberty, the organisation into which the NCCL morphed; and more recently Pat Hewitt, the General Secretary at the time this was all going on. So what else are you and the DM expecting Harriet Harman to apologise for?
As to the age of consent; NCCL were very active in reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from the then 21? I think it was, and equalising it with the heterosexual age of consent which was then 16, as it is now. That was a worthy cause. There is and has been an ongoing discussion about the age of consent ever since, and not just here. Whilst 14 might be adjudged too low, under the current law 2 15 year olds, knowing the other was under 16, could technically be adjudged to have broken the law and face a maximum sentence of 5 years which seems wrong to me.
I have followed the story - but not closely enough to understand quite why it has come out now, after all this time.
I have always been baffled by the unwillingness of politicians to apologise, taking matters to almost Fawty-esque limits in an effort to try and extrcate themselves from situations when a simple apology would have saved time and money, to say nothing of saving face.
I believe that people fundamentally accept an apology made sincerely for an error, because we all make mistakes, that's why they put rubbers on the end of pencils.
Ms. Harman has continued to deny her part in this dreadful business, while her successors in the organisation have no problem apologising for the last actions of that organisation.
In doing so, she has painted herself into a moral and political corner, where the time for a genuine apology initiated by herself and her husband has passed, and now anything she says will look grudging, mealy-mouthed, and insincere - all of which it will be.
So, in common with most of her ilk, I suspect Ms Harman will attempt to tough it out even further, and attempt to salvage any shreds of her moral reputation that may still be left by simply allowing time to pass.
Ideally, this should be done outwith the high profile arena of fornt-line politics - she should follow Tony Blair's example.
I have always been baffled by the unwillingness of politicians to apologise, taking matters to almost Fawty-esque limits in an effort to try and extrcate themselves from situations when a simple apology would have saved time and money, to say nothing of saving face.
I believe that people fundamentally accept an apology made sincerely for an error, because we all make mistakes, that's why they put rubbers on the end of pencils.
Ms. Harman has continued to deny her part in this dreadful business, while her successors in the organisation have no problem apologising for the last actions of that organisation.
In doing so, she has painted herself into a moral and political corner, where the time for a genuine apology initiated by herself and her husband has passed, and now anything she says will look grudging, mealy-mouthed, and insincere - all of which it will be.
So, in common with most of her ilk, I suspect Ms Harman will attempt to tough it out even further, and attempt to salvage any shreds of her moral reputation that may still be left by simply allowing time to pass.
Ideally, this should be done outwith the high profile arena of fornt-line politics - she should follow Tony Blair's example.
that is not the age of consent that was being discussed, nor is it the one that the founder of PIE wanted.
All this is getting Ms Harman nowhere, because this won't go away, Patricia Hewitt has apologised, let her get on with it, and it should stop. Unless of course there's more to this, cover ups have been known.
All this is getting Ms Harman nowhere, because this won't go away, Patricia Hewitt has apologised, let her get on with it, and it should stop. Unless of course there's more to this, cover ups have been known.
LazyGun
/// As to the age of consent; NCCL were very active in reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from the then 21? I think it was, and equalising it with the heterosexual age of consent which was then 16, as it is now. That was a worthy cause. There is and has been an ongoing discussion about the age of consent ever since, and not just here. Whilst 14 might be adjudged too low, under the current law 2 15 year olds, knowing the other was under 16, could technically be adjudged to have broken the law and face a maximum sentence of 5 years which seems wrong to me. ///
Wasn't there also a matter of the reduction of age of consent to 10 and legalisation of incest?
I wouldn't know myself only quoting what I read in the Independent.
Perhaps I will know be criticised for quoting from another Right-Wing rag.(but wait a minute)
http://
/// As to the age of consent; NCCL were very active in reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from the then 21? I think it was, and equalising it with the heterosexual age of consent which was then 16, as it is now. That was a worthy cause. There is and has been an ongoing discussion about the age of consent ever since, and not just here. Whilst 14 might be adjudged too low, under the current law 2 15 year olds, knowing the other was under 16, could technically be adjudged to have broken the law and face a maximum sentence of 5 years which seems wrong to me. ///
Wasn't there also a matter of the reduction of age of consent to 10 and legalisation of incest?
I wouldn't know myself only quoting what I read in the Independent.
Perhaps I will know be criticised for quoting from another Right-Wing rag.(but wait a minute)
http://
-- answer removed --
has Peter Bone been convicted yet, or is this an allegation at this stage
http://
http://
@AoG Well context is often important.
From the Telegraph;
"A National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) press release quoted in The Sun issued in Miss Hewitt’s sole name in March 1976 read: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”
"The document, which relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reform continues: "The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished.
“In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.”"
Plainly, the NCCL were controversial in calling for incest to be decriminalised - but again, that's a topic that has been discussed again and since.
But they were not necesarily wrong to lobby for a reduction in the age of consent to 14, nor to request special exemption for 2 underage kids having sex. The one area they got wrong was this business about it being ok to have sex with a child older than 10 if a defendant could be prove that said child had given consent. That was stupid.
Pat Hewitt has already apologised, has spoken of regret and said she got it wrong with PIE - and as general secretary and signatory to this piece of advocacy on family and sex law that is her perogative.
Now, tell me again - what is it specifically that you wish Ms. Harman to apologise for, beyond the expression of regret she has already made that the NCCL ever allowed PIE to affiliate? What form of words?
And answer me this; If PIE was so vile, their agenda so repugnant that we are castigating members of an affiliated organisation from 40 years ago, why are we not calling former Home Secretaries to account for not making these organisations illegal?
From the Telegraph;
"A National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) press release quoted in The Sun issued in Miss Hewitt’s sole name in March 1976 read: “NCCL proposes that the age of consent should be lowered to 14, with special provision for situations where the partners are close in age or where the consent of a child over ten can be proved.”
"The document, which relates to an NCCL report on sexual law reform continues: "The report argues that the crime of incest should be abolished.
“In our view, no benefit accrues to anyone by making incest a crime when committed between mutually consenting persons over the age of consent.”"
Plainly, the NCCL were controversial in calling for incest to be decriminalised - but again, that's a topic that has been discussed again and since.
But they were not necesarily wrong to lobby for a reduction in the age of consent to 14, nor to request special exemption for 2 underage kids having sex. The one area they got wrong was this business about it being ok to have sex with a child older than 10 if a defendant could be prove that said child had given consent. That was stupid.
Pat Hewitt has already apologised, has spoken of regret and said she got it wrong with PIE - and as general secretary and signatory to this piece of advocacy on family and sex law that is her perogative.
Now, tell me again - what is it specifically that you wish Ms. Harman to apologise for, beyond the expression of regret she has already made that the NCCL ever allowed PIE to affiliate? What form of words?
And answer me this; If PIE was so vile, their agenda so repugnant that we are castigating members of an affiliated organisation from 40 years ago, why are we not calling former Home Secretaries to account for not making these organisations illegal?
andy-hughes, Harman's position is that she has nothing to apologise for, which I think is correct. She was not in a position to expel PIE. Hewitt was in a more senior positiion, and thus does have something to apologise for; and she has done so. The NCCL's current boss has also apologised, but she wasn't there at the time, so it's a corporate apology rather than a personal one.
As far as I can see, everyone has done the right thing.
As far as I can see, everyone has done the right thing.
Latest Posts
They're Coming After Your Holidays...
News15 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles31 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles40 mins ago
ChatterBank77 mins ago
https://melds.eu/pages/VivalisReviews
How it Works109 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.