Today's Daily Mail spread demands answers from Harman, Dromey and Hewitt

The Daily Mail ran a splash yesterday in which it exposed "the full extent of the shocking links between three senior Labour figures and a vile group that tried to legalise sex with children."

The trio - Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, her husband, home affairs spokesman Jack Dromey, and former health secretary Patricia Hewitt - were alleged to have supported the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE) during their time with the National Council for Civil Liberties (NCCL) in the 1970s and early 1980s.

A few paragraphs in, I thought I had read the story before. I then turned to the spread, headlined "Labour's child sex apologists", and had the same feeling of déjà vu.

Late yesterday, I received an email from a friend in which he confirmed that the story was "old" in the sense that it had been published previously. Where? In the Daily Mail.

Yesterday's Mail spread - a follow-up to its article on 14 December 2013

So I looked back and discovered that a very similar story was indeed published by the Mail just two months ago, on 14 December. There was a front page picture blurb and an inside spread, "Apologists for paedophiles."

There were two obvious similarities. The presentation was almost identical. And the "special investigation" in December was bylined Guy Adams, as was yesterday's spread. But the articles were different.

Adams had clearly uncovered more information about the NCCL's relationship with the now-defunct PIE since his original investigation. (NB: NCCL is now known as Liberty).

The first piece dealt initially with PIE's magazine. The Magpie, which advocated the legalisation of sex between adults and children. It went on to claim that, in 1975, PIE "somehow succeeded in convincing the NCCL to grant it official 'affiliate' status." That link, write Adams, raised "tricky questions" for Harman, Dromey and Hewitt.

That article also stated that the home office had launched an investigation into allegations that PIE had received public funds during Labour's administration in the 1970s.

Yesterday's piece concentrated instead on the claim that a "dog-eared" copy of the NCCL's 1980s magazine, Rights, carried a letter from a man who championed paedophilia.

More sensationally, it also reproduced a document purportedly showing that the NCCL lobbied for the age of sexual consent to be reduced to 10 and urged that incest be legalised.

It also referred to the December report, stating that Harman, Dromey and Hewitt were not "eager to elaborate on the issue" at the time.

This time, however, a spokesman for Harman was quoted as saying: "The very suggestion that Harriet was in any way supportive of PIE or its aims is untrue and misleading."

Dromey said he had always been an "implacable opponent" of PIE. Hewitt did not comment.

The Mail article says: "We must, of course, take them at their word. But quite what Hewitt, Dromey or Harman ever actually did actively (or 'implacably') to oppose PIE is, however, open to question."

Sunday People on 25 May, 1975

It goes on to give what it claims are examples of PIE being defended by the NCCL, even after the Sunday People published a splash [on 25 May, 1975] headlined "The vilest men in Britain." It says that the NCCL went so far as to complain about it to the Press Council (the PCC's predecessor).

Today, the Mail maintains its pressure on the trio with another splash "Now say sorry!" and a spread, "Vital questions these apologists for child sex MUST now answer."

I can, of course, grasp the anti-Labour (and anti-leftist) agenda that underlies this assault on the trio. It could be said to be a hatchet job, as my emailing friend contended in knee-jerk fashion. I also accept that it was a long time ago.

But I'm with the Mail on this. On the basis of the paper's evidence, I think Harman, Dromey and Hewitt do need to address this matter seriously.

It isn't good enough to say the world was different then (as some have been suggesting in relation to the recent crop of historic sex abuse court cases) because there has never been a time when it has been all right to advocate sex with a child.

Indeed, the very fact that the Sunday People saw fit to publish that front page in the 1970s proves the point, does it not?