Tonight Question Time comes from Oldham – which holds the record for the most Vauxhall Corsas per square mile. The name derives from Aldehulme; an Old Norse word meaning “Get the horses; we’re off”
On the panel: Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman MP who famously paid for her nanny on expenses, the Labour bloke who posted a picture of himself on the internet in his Y-fronts Chris Bryant MP, Liberal Democrat peer and serial troublemaker Lord Oakeshitt, Professor of Classics at the University of Cambridge and “Too Ugly For Television” Mary Beard, and the serial flip-flopping opinions-for-short-term-rent Daily Telegraph columnist Peter Oborne.
Your Moderators line-up consists of David Vance, David Mosque, TheEye and John Ward.
Question Time is followed by This Week. Andrew Neil has Louise Mensch, Alan Johnson and Charles *hic* Kennedy for company.
The lefty French journalist and Guardian political commentator Agnes Poirier looks at the consequences of the election of Francois Hollande in France, and what it could mean for Europe and the UK.
Quentin Letts gives a round-up of the Queen’s Speech week and the aftermath of last week’s elections.
The tedious Will Self looks at stigma, and will pontificate on gay marriage (presumably he’s in favour) and child sex grooming (presumably he’s against).
You really know how to sell it.
I will be there me hearties (in #manflu affected pirate voice)
Whats the betting that all the panellists give the politically correct line on the ‘grooming’ issue – ‘its not connected to race/religion’ ?
Peter hit the nail on the head. What is it about the white political elites and their inability to call a spade a spade.
…but they weren’t spades!
Their replies were text book tippy-toe bullshit weren’t they.
Embarrassing to watch!
They should have had Douglas Murray or Allison Pearson on to tell it how it really is
‘text book tippy-toe’
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/brendanoneill2/100157120/muslims-sex-gangs-and-white-working-class-women/
‘If you want an insight into how cowardly public debate in Britain has become, look no further than…Comments are closed.
Interesting times when our media is so selective over what is discussed or not, what warrants a ‘row’ or not, where questions need to be asked, or not, when the powerful need holding to account… or not.
‘What’s more, in our era of multiculturalism, ethnic minorities are implicitly encouraged to distance themselves from their “host community” and even to view the host community’s culture as inferior to their own, as more shallow, hedonistic and consumer-orientated than their own authentic cultural lives’.
The BBC narrative in a nutshell. This is not about stoking up the threat of a far-right backlash, it’s about the decent-minded, tolerant average Brit seeing the freedoms and values of his country, which have taken hundreds of years to evolve, being undermined by elements of an imported foreign culture which nobody in government seems prepared to confront for fear of upsetting a minority, and moreover is given positive encouragement by our state broadcaster through its appeasing and misleading reporting. The perceived preferential treatment of such minorities by the BBC and its ilk, and ‘tolerance of the intolerant’ in particular, breeds resentment amongst apolitical and fair-minded Brits. God knows where it will end if this irresponsible whitewashing of the nastier aspects of ‘multiculturalism’ is allowed to continue.
…not connected to race and religion and of course *very complicated*
This part of QT was even worse than usual. A whitewash of cowardly rationalisation, hair splitting and blame shifting – it was society’s fault, the parents fault, the medias fault – they even tried the old – “she was asking for it going out dressed like that”.
Everyone tiptoed round the fact that all the rapists were brown and all the victims were white. Why did the rapists not touch the brown girls on their own doorstep but travelled miles to find white victims instead? Obviously there was a racist element to these crimes – there can be no other explanation.
Yet not one single person on the panel or in the handpicked audience put this view. BBC libtard bias at its worse.
a comment on another forum was the suggestion that they merge the QT format and part of that of the programme QI …. every time a ‘well known fact’ is trotted out… such as ‘leaving the EU will cost 3 million jobs;…the studio lights will flash and a klaxon will sound.
Points would be deducted and/or the culprit made to wear a silly hat.
what do you think ?
‘every time a ‘well known fact’ is trotted out… such as ‘leaving the EU will cost 3 million jobs;…the studio lights will flash and a klaxon will sound.’
I’d vote for that! (if aware voting on anything BBC is not really their thing… they ‘speak for us’ via other means, apparently)
ps: I see we can now add images easily (yay!) but… has the preview gone:( Stand by for typos.
I would not bet on the ‘grooming’ issue being covered – despite the audience screening process there is just too much risk that a member of the audience will be ‘off message’.
Err the civil service pension scheme has already been changed in the late 1990s under liebour. Never let facts get in the way of popualism
I can’t think of a better venue for the lefty BBC QT to be broadcast from this evening.
OLD-HAM
Yes, pity there’s no district like Oldham Queendyke Snortcommon.
Just seen a clip on North West News which showed Oborne wringing his hands over how the Rochdale ‘child grooming’ (aka gang rape) case will play into the hands of the BNP. And so it continues…
Incidentally the lunchtime edition of NW News showed police CCTV footage of a ‘racist’ attack on an ‘Asian’ takeaway (bloke came in shouting, threw a few punches which didn’t land, ran out again). No sound to the footage, so who knows what could have sparked the incident? Sufficient for Plod to take the word of the guy behind the counter and declare it racist. A minor incident compared to the murder and mayhem we normally see reported on the programme, but handy for the BBC narrative: ‘only whites can be racists’, and in huge contrast to their denial of any racist motivation (despite the judge’s conclusions) in the infinitely more serious grooming case which concluded yeserday. Sick.
Sounds like Ken Livingstones company has already got into setting up YouTube clips for sale to the BBC , by the sounds of it!
As for Oborne-reckon we`ll find he`s in the pay of some kind of Camel Corps function one day-for a man so sound on the EU and political corruption, he seems to give Pakistan one hell of a lot of leeway.
Would`n“t watch this shower of shit on Qt…but grateful to those who do-maybe we should insist that Thursday evenings after the news is a Happy Hour for binge-drinkers to consume vast amounts of booze from registered BBC licensed outlets…gratis, to save on meds from our hard pressed NHS.
BBC Solent will be my nomianted offie, so hope to see you there!
Worst ever QT. A disgrace to broadcasting, to brush aside the Muslim Pedophile question and allow the blaming of the Children, the care service and every other person without blaming the bloody obvious was shameful. A new low in debate and a new low for the BBC. Every single member of the panel and Dimbleby should hang their heads in shame.
To be fair I thought Dimblelby knew the C of E vicar had gone too far in trying to load blame on to the children. The man was a disgrace to the Church. I have seldom heard a more odious creepy cleric.
A few harsh words would have silenced him but then Dimbleby is sometimes far too polite.
I hope that vicar’s bishop was watching and does the decent thing and sacks him first thing tomorrow morning.
Seeing him defend the abusers and saying that it was the fault of the parents and the girls themselves made my blood boil.
I had hoped that Dimbleby or a member of the panel would have slapped him down for his nonsense – but there was no hope of that.
Sounds like some Giles Fraser type of creepy prelate hoping to get onto the next multi-faith meeting at Oldhams safest mosque.
Clearly this fool hasn`t read Mt18:6-7 ,or Mk 9:42…but no doubt, he`ll know his Koran excuses for raping the kaffir…bound to be in there somewhere in some sick interpretation from the 14th Century.
Noted Tim Minchin on Desert Island Discs being encouraged to ditch the Bible as a gift…and he added that it would burn well should he need that.
Funny how the Koran isn`t being offered…after all, that`s written on combustible paper too.
In a nutshell-the creeping Issas of the liberal elite will now know that northern branch of the Cof E for when they want their used condoms blessed.
Well said. I think we should complain.
well said. It was simply the most objectionable and despicable left wing Islamic apologist propaganda I’ve ever seen.
55 “likes” tells you something about a comment that “resonates” with popular sentiment. The Ruling Class (Blue and Pink) might usefully take note of how far adrift they are from ordinary hard-working people.
Completely agree – blaming children for being raped. It was even more disgusting than the QT after 9/11 that took the view that America deserved the terrorist attack.
The official BBC line and that of it’s selected audience is that it was the victims fault and that Islam is the real victim here as the “grooming” (what a stupid term) might “play into the hands of the BNP”.
You couldn’t make it up. Then again they thought 911 was justified too.
‘The official BBC line and that of it’s selected audience’
As part of my complaints I am beginning to get told of yet other, of course non-communicating, mutually-exclusive entities ‘responsible’ for the editorial decisions of who gets invited on which, in true BBC-style, can in no way be connected to why they were invited on or what they may say.
Just for fun, requests have to be submitted on the first blood moon of Lentmas, in illuminated script via runner bearing it in a cleft stick. Due to workload and the fact that they are getting so many more complaints now, they reserve the right not to reply if it doesn’t suit or you have a case they can’t answer.
In the unlikely event of a reply, much less a coherent one beyond solemnly intoning that all BBC on-screen gobs are selected totally impartially (and/or for light of heat), I will share.
ps: Preview has now reappeared. Order on this blog, at least, is restored:)
Include me in!
Didn`t see it, but that makes me even more of a potential arsehole to the BBC!
Would like to know why the BBC didn`t continue with reporting OFSTEDs threat to ban mobiles in schools; why so much valuable school time is getting used up in Olympic rehearsals…and why the greatness of Private schools wasn`t used by the BBC as proposed by Gove-after all if he had called Cameron a “posh git,” the Beeb would have led with that…so we`d not be too unhappy at no-one showing up for the public sector rallies yesterday.
Gove mentioned the Marr show on Sunday-only the caretaker had not been to public school apparently…yet the BBC say schtum…why`s that?
Laura Penney went to Brighton College-the Independent School where Gove and OFSTEDs head were speaking!
How do I go about sticking this under the Beebs skin, and hopefully cause inflammation for them all?
And no-I don`t loath the BBC-I`m fascinated by their processes and intrigued in teasing the issues out for greater reflection…then we can draw a line under the robust and frank discussions before moving on and seeking that much-needed closure and consensus….
How am I doing then?…Vaz or Hodge?
I’m shaking with rage!!!!! I can’t believe what i’ve just watched!!!! This was worse than the 9/11 QT show!!!
No, it’s actually the same: blame the victims.
Oh dear…I hope it’s on iplayer next week when I get back.
I missed it too.
Mate, for you health and blood pressure I would advise you not to…it really was appalling.
I missed it aswell. At least on iplayer you can pause, go outside, and bellow obscenities to get the anger out of your system. (although, the type of obscenities I might be bellowing during this episode might well get me arrested and placed on a database – bastard of a country we’ve become, haven’t we)
LOL Merlin. Actually I stopped watching years ago, not long after after the 911 disgrace. I watch every now and again to feed the rage….sounds like I will get a double dose.
On the Question Time website they carry this Labour luvving correction…
A Question Time clarification
During Question Time on March 1st in Dewsbury, an audience member remarked that the former local MP Shahid Malik made a promise to clear the debt of the local hospital and then subsequently failed to fulfil this promise. We wish to clarify that this was incorrect, and that Mr Malik never made the pledge.
Link
I wonder how many times they have leapt to correct false accusations made against a Tory on their programme or to refute a lie put out by a lefty in the audience? Answers on a micro-dot please.
The BBC – rushing to Labour’s defence – always.
I wondered the same previously…
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/05/07/open-thread-386/#comment-20758
I expect you have to be a very persistent lefty to get this kind of clarification, and then only if they feel it’s a worthy point to make.
11
So – marks out of ten – how did I do?…
http://biasedbbc.tv/2012/05/09/open-thread-387/#comment-20924
One of the most telling points in the debate was this.
In attempting to row back from the vicar’s “they were asking for it” blame-the-victims argument someone (it may have been Underpants, I forget) said something to the effect of clearly, a 47-year old man who was having sex with a 12 year old girl was just evil.
Now then, the panel largely consisted of expensively educated pretty smart people. You can’t tell me that none of them is aware of the story of Mohammed’s favourite wife, Aisha. You know, the 9 year old girl that he married and had sex with when he was 54? If the Rochdale 47 year old muslim is evil for screwing a 12 year old, what does that say about Mohammed, judged by the standards of modern civilisation?
And yet Islam was barely mentioned as being a factor in this case. Indeed, Oborne opined that it was a very moral religion. MORAL???
So here we had a panel of our Elites, all saying yes, yes, we must be able to talk about race. Let’s all say “race” and “Asian” over and over and then say “but race wasn’t a factor”. But not one of the lilly-livered, spineless cowards was prepared to call out Islam – the elephant in the room. All we got was the usual “Religion of Peace” lie. Crippled by political correctness, the panel censored any discussion about the real issue: that many of the examples of “good behaviour” set by Mohammed in the Dark Ages are utterly incompatible with modern civilisation.
This needs to be flushed out into the open and discussed. Because whilst no doubt the vast majority of western muslims would reject and condemn the idea of old men having sex with children, there are self evidently pockets of muslim men all over the country who would either use Islam as an excuse to indulge in depraved, disgiusting behaviour or else who actually believe that they, rather than the majority, are the good, proper muslims by following the prophet’s example. Oh, and of course, the same goes for the “root causes” of Islamic terrorism.
Going back to a previous post about the COOP boycotting Israeli goods I phoned my local store manager to find out what was going on.
http://www.christiansforzion.com/chris-proudlove/2012/5/1/anti-israel-critics-con-co-op-into-banning-jewish-imports.html
I was given a lecture about Israeli ‘aggression’ illegal occupation etc. the usual crud, and when I told I told him that since they are against Israel then by default they must be pro her enemies – the people who call for a second holocaust and openly state that they are going to eradicate Christians and Christianity from western Europe and turn it into a pagan caliphate he just hung up.
http://www.christiansforzion.com/journal/category/comment
I also mentioned that Palestinian and Arab farmers in Israel are kicking up about this as this has a serious detrimental affect on their liveliehood but he didn’t want to know.
It’s a pity since I used to like shopping there – but no more.
I too have boycotted the Co-op.
They took over from Somerfield, and they are con men.
I note their bargain offers get put awful close to their usual over-priced ones, with little distinction between them-and only pedantic types like me bring the things back for money back…they are sly by policy I am certain!
Reckon we`ve gor out old nag of the Labour Party that needs hounding to the knackers yard here…any other stories about “this idea whose time has lon gone”.
Reckon a few MPs and Union types would hate a light shone on this old nag….and its view on Israel is the last straw-or excuse if you like!
Who`s with me?
It might be a good idea to play them at their own game, and portray yourself as one of those deeply concerned human rights types. Why stop at Israel? Get people to browse their aisles to note the source nations of many of their best selling products, research the human rights records of those countries, then start a writing campaign.
They’ll soon realised the problems created for their supply chain by being consistent in their approach. I expect Israel will look like the good guys in comparison to some of the nations that supply their produce. I does show the power and persuasion of the rabid anti-Israel lobby, doesn’t it. Small in number, load of voice. Like these toss-pots – thankfully, it back-fired rather wonderfully…
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4194633,00.html
…right…off to buy some bagels 🙂
loud – not load – programmers typo!
I used to go to the Co-Op as well but I got bored of their bottled ale range. So I suppose you could say that I chose to ‘beercott’ it!
The state-educated morons wouldn’t recognise Middle Eastern history if it sat up and bit them on the arse.
I am state educated, and my only regret is, that i was born too late for the Second Crusade.
There you go- a free edition of Watchdog/You and Yours for the digital age!
Power to the People!
A question is posed..
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100157378/race-rochdale-victim-blaming-and-a-liberal-blind-spot/
‘Was race a factor in Rochdale?’
The answer..
‘Content unavailable’
Comments are closed.
Welcome to N-uK.
Chivers just killed any chance of being allowed on the BBC any time soon.
Which, given his usual patch, and supportive following (not too many who posts, when allowed, on his DT threads, TBH), presents an interesting situation.
Seems like, as with 10:10, etc, about the only bastion of illiberal knee-jerk, ‘we’re comfortable’ delusion in the face of facts and reality is… the BBC.
Complaints to the BBC about this sick display will go nowhere, I’m afraid. After all, the vile behavior and excuses came from the audience and the panelists, and not Beeboids. Dimbleby’s weak moderating didn’t help, but all opinions expressed were from the public. Pretty sad statement on society, for which the BBC is partially responsible, yes. But these kind of shows are how they get away with it.
The only people there who tried to speak the truth were the three Mrs. Duffy types, and we all know what the BBC thought of her. I wonder if any of the panelists or BBC producers involved knew just how this all looked to sensible people.
My complaint to BBC over QT
Dear BBC
This recent episode of Question Time was the most egregious, biased, despicable piece of victim blaming I have ever seen from the BBC. This almost tops the farcical QT post-9/11 when your audience and panel almost brought an American man to tears by promoting the view that the atrocity was some form of redemption for Americas wrongdoings. It appears that political correctness is so important to you that you are willing to pick an audience that will blame child rape victims for their own misfortune. There are many commentators, from many ethnic backgrounds, including Mohammed Shafiq from the Ramadhan Foundation, who are much more qualified to discuss the issue.
As a state public broadcaster you must have been aware of the opinions of some of the panel members on this matter. If this is not the case, then you have proven to be highly irresponsible in your choice of guests in this matter. The Rochdale grooming case is one which has dragged on for over a decade, involving dozens of men, with perhaps hundreds of child victims. Not only have these countless victims and their families had to suffer greatly, with this issue been ignored by the social services and police, they now how to face audacious victim-blaming from a supposed responsible, unbiased state-broadcasting corporation.
Congratulations on sinking to a new low.
Peter Oborne-“One of them involves the young girls who accepted the advances of these disgusting men. What does it tell us about the, about what is happening to our society that we have 12-year old girls, 13 year old girls, who are happy to give up their affection and their beauty to men in exchange for a packet of crisps or a bit of credit on their mobile phone.”
Mr. Oborne clearly missed the bit about these young girls being plied with alcohol (and goodness knows what else), and the fact that they were young enough not to have known better.
Shame on him!
Well said.
I originally posted this on the Feminist Board: F Word after I read the intellectually sloppy blog from one of their members. Needless to say, they decided not to post my response – what a bunch of intellectually redundant creeps these people are:
Question Time was a cop out. It almost always it; all the panel had to exercise a big dollop of doublethink and legerdemain to avoid those annoying little things called facts. I got the impression that Oborne wasn’t sincere in what he said: just watch at how many times he tripped and stumbled over his words. I agree with the authour of this blog: the attempt of Oborne, and some in the audience, to expand culpability to these children and wider society was the most despicable piece of chicanery I’ve ever had the misfortune of listening to.
Was a race an issue? Yes, clearly it was. The Judge himself betrays the fact:
“Some of you, when arrested, said it was triggered by race.”
“That is nonsense. What triggered this prosecution was your lust and greed.”
Tellingly, that important first sentence was omitted from Question Time. So the defendant’s given testimony for motive is dismissed by the presiding judge – why? There is no rational answer as to why that is. However, the Judge was quite happy to recognise that:
“One of the factors leading to that [the abuse] was the fact that they were not part of your community or religion.”
So a clearly demarcated in-group / out-group gave legitimacy for these Pakistanis to rape, abuse and exploit these underage white girls; but oh no, race was most definitely not a presiding factor. What sort of rhetorical ploys must you play to avoid the syncretism of these points? These girls belonged to a different ethno-religious group: that gave credence and justification to their exploitation by these Asian men. Their race, or ethnicity, was defining factor of their being an ‘out-group’: distinct members of the ‘other’ in the eyes and minds of these men. We need candour here, not sophistry.
This case has scratched the surface of the enormous gulf between the attitudes of men whose culture is: honour based, clan based, and primitively patriarchal, and the wider habits of Westerners in Britain. It’s a gulf that seems irreconcilable and one that gave substance to the perversions of these Asian men.
Rochdale’s MP, Simon Danczuk, has made it crystal clear what the truth of the matter is:
“I spoke to Mr Danczuk yesterday, and he strenuously disputes claims that this is a one-off case, or even a recent phenomenon. The grooming of white girls by a small sub-section of the Pakistani community was being discussed in Blackburn council 15 years ago.”
“Simon Danczuk laughs at the view of Keith Vaz that “this was not a race issue”
(Allison Pearson, from the Telegraph)
So these clearly demarcated ethno-religious lines have produced a toxic milieu; it’s an odium that has seen the imposition of certain men in the Asian population onto vulnerable white girls. Danczuk tells us that this isn’t a rarefied point but has been discussed for well over a decade in the Council.
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadahn Foundation has echoed the same point:
“They think that white teenage girls are worthless and can be abused without a second thought; it is this sort of behaviour that is bringing shame on our community.”
For his troubles he has been the recipient of numerous death threats and acts of intimidation. (Perhaps betrays a more insalubrious hue of the Pakistani community in that area).
So these are the facts of the matter. Oborne, in typically dishonest fashion, attempted to set a cat among the pigeons by highlighting the fact that 95% of pedophiles are white. My word, talk about missing the wood for trees: the difference is that in those instances there is no evidence of an ethnic motive; there is in this case. Further, street grooming is a specific trafficking, exploitative and paedophilia act. Again, what are the facts?
Three quarters of men prosecuted for street grooming have been Pakistanis; nine tenths have been Asians – the victims have been vulnerable white girls. This correlates with the experiences and concerns of those who have been involved in this specific case, and those who have passed concern on the continuing exploitation of underage white girls by Asians in the area.
The Minister in Question Time is singled out by the authour for especial condemnation -I fail to see why. The Minister, albeit in an incoherent babble, was essentially iterating points not too dissimilar to the ones written above in this blog. What he attempted to do was homogenise the blame: instead of it resting solely on the shoulders of these convicts, the blame must rest on wider society, and, ipso facto, you and I. This was an intellectual cop out of the most damaging kind: in order to neuter those annoying facts of the case, the Minister had to widen the scope of blame onto wider society and culture; if he can do that, any singularity of the case can be completely banished. But there is no collective responsibility: ultimate recourse falls upon these men and these men alone: they are the absolute sovereigns of their actions; by attempting to rationalise their behavour – by almost suggesting that they are victims themselves – you inadvertently absolve them of some their crime. This is intellectually sloppy and it’s intellectual dishonest.
Collectivising guilt is a standard ploy to avoid specificity, but the fact of the matter is that this case IS singular because of the facts involved: there is an issue of certain Asian men targeting, grooming and raping underage white girls. The Minister flirted with an uncomfortable truth: that mores and sentiments of English society is at loggerheads with large swathes of the Muslim population, that in itself was the substance that gave rise to these crimes; but clearly that divergence exists totally within certain Asian – Muslim communities. As Brendan O’neil put it, white women are just a bunch of slappers from which Asian men, shackled by an honour based and fiercely patriarchal society, can have their wicked way; if that’s the prevailing sentiment, it’s no surprise that a minority, viewing the ‘other’ as easy prey, have dehumanised and savaged these poor, vulnerable girls.
Collectivising guilt is an excellent description of the tact employed by these self-aggrandizing commentators. There seems to be no limit to the sophistry they will use to avert the public attention to the methodical pre-orchestrated abuse and manipulation of the most vulnerable in society. For some reason Peter Oborne seemed to blame the immorality of wider society and young girls for making them willing to give up their innocence for a “packet of crisps”. The manipulation, drug-plying and intimidation notwithstanding, wearing provocative clothing does not entitle someone to rape you. Where are the feminists in all of this?
They also (including audience members) appeared to attack the “hidden psychology” behind the argument by constantly referring to the BNP. Even though the question of whether this is a racial/religious issue has nothing to do with the BNP, by referring to the BNP they are intentionally avoiding and obfuscating the argument by reducing it to an imagined battle between “The Asian community vs. The BNP”. Therefore, anybody who would dare speak out honestly about this specific issue, mentioning the uncomfortable statistics and facts, feels bullied into silence.
When you’ve convinced yourself that multiculturalism can only be good and that it’s racist to suggest otherwise, it’s easier to blame the BNP than to admit to yourself that there just may be a problem within certain communities.
There are so many glaring problems associated with this case that one is left absolutely open mouthed. It opens more questions about the quality of Social Services and the quality of our police.
These are vulnerable girls who probably come from unstable/poor homes. In light of the fact that the Police and Social services have been aware of this for 10 years one would have thought;
1. Police patrols would have been on the lookout for young girls wandering the streets, particularly in this area. Girls seen should have been picked up and returned to care.
2. Social services care facilities should have ensured that it was not possible for these girls to get out on to the streets at these times.
Forget Leveson/McPherson, this case highlights very serious issues about Social Services and Policing in protecting the public and investigating serious paedophilia.
The gangs of Muslim perverts that perpetrated this crime are the scum of the Earth. To abuse an innocent child is absolutely unforgivable. For it to take 10 years to prosecute them is even worse.
Every responsible politician/councilor who is responsible should be insisting on independent investigation of this and all relevant heads of dept should be suspended immediately.
Quite!!!
…and where is this term ‘social justice’ that the left are so fond of. Suddenly it doesn’t seem to be so forthcoming, when it clearly ought to be.
…and where is Liberty? I haven’t seen Shami or Clive Staffrod-Stiff all over the BBC conveying their outrage at the exploitation and victimisation of the vulnerable and marginalised.
Suppose we accept the part of the minister’s argument which says young teenage girls have been sexualised and dress accordingly, and by implication are somehow ‘asking for it’. To blame this on ‘scoiety’ i.e. all of us is downright wrong. Rather, if there has been any encouragement given to teenagers to be promiscuous and free-thinking, it has come exclusively from the liberal left. Any number of discussions on BBC radio over the past 15 years have involved leftie harridans from so-called children’s charities explaining in the most patronising tone to us old-fashioned sorts how , if a 12-year old chooses to go on the pill it is her right and, moreover, nothing to do with her parents if she chooses not to involve them (though, of course, there will be plenty of school/local authority/NHS ‘counsellors’ to guide her safely through to her goal).
So to bring the minister’s argument to its logical conclusion, we have an explosive mix of two key leftie elements of permissiveness – the other being the blind acceptance of all things multicultural (good or bad).
I for one believe these girls are still children, whatever the minister thinks, and the law and society should react to this case accordingly.
So have we heard the feminist lobby proclaim on this case? I doubt it, because Leftie Top Trumps will have come into play and, as we all know, the Muslim card trumps everything.
As I was fortunate enough to miss this evidently shameful episode, I would be interested to hear (from those that endured it) whether the phrase ‘most vulnerable members of our society’ was used in relation to these abused young girls? It’s a phrase that seems to so easily trip off the tongues of audience members and panelists alike, in connection to just about every topic discussed. It would surely be most applicable to this group, and very telling if it were suddenly absent.
It was used I think, yes. I have noticed too that it has become a mainstay of commentary.
I thought it was a labour registered trademark, like ‘Tory led coalition.’
I cherished as much as you will obtain carried out proper here. The comic strip is tasteful, your authored material stylish. nevertheless, you command get got an nervousness over that you would like be handing over the following. unwell surely come more until now again since exactly the similar nearly very incessantly inside case you protect this increase.
my question:
after the 10th one it did n’t matter that he belonged to an ethnic minority! who was he?