I'm going to fight my corner on this one.

First, I was prompted to raise the issue by getting an email from a TMAer who was unsure about joining HA and who said they didn't want to be involved if it was associated in direct action and dubious campaigning. This isn't my main reason, but it's worth pointing out that there are many people who feel like that and we could lose a lot of potential supporters that way (the flipside of losing support of more radical people!).I tend to agree with their feelings, and although I've been as radical as anyone in my time and I know it sometimes works, I also know it's sometimes counter-productive and impedes causes. I think it has a place but a separate one.
Second, I take a long term strategic view of HA and think we have set it up just right so that it will grow, in the form of an umbrella organization, to fill a big need. However, particularly while it's in it's infancy, and has few campaigns and no track record, it needs to protect it's image, which is the one and only thing our opponents can use against us. We have some stunning stuff and will do well, but why jeapardise our current causes needlessly? Later, when we are well known, and our persona is well embedded in the public's consciousness, we can afford to be less careful, but not yet IMHO. Having spent a week poring over some technical stuff I now think there are some absolutely scandalous things that we can bring to the public and no way will we be in danger of being seen as "toothless tea n' cakes suck-ups" but on the other hand exactly because some of it is so scandalous I'd like to leave absolutely no bolt holes.
As I understand it the HA umbrella will have individual campaign pages (1) from existing campaigns and linked to their websites and (2) created by us at the suggestion of the public, and the two types of page will be of equal weight and under the same banner and stated principles. (I've posted an outline as I see it on the HA site). This obviously involves trusting that all the campaigners act in a way that accords with our standards - our site, our banner, so we're associated. I just think there are some occasions when we can do without more than a small risk.
My solution would be: either make our pages that link to existing campaigns less prominent than our home grown ones on the grounds we can then minimise our connection with them if they're naughty (seems unfair and impracticable- we trust the Thornborough campaign after all) or we keep them all equal but are selective about who we allow under our banner.
None of this, of course, precludes us from maintaining an independent Nine Ladies campaign of our own or of maintaining a simple links page that would include a link to the Nine Ladies campaign website.