The thing with David Cameron is that just like Tolstoy's unhappy families, he's reliably appalling but always in a different way. Take his latest campaign.
Well, why not ? But wait.... I've just remembered. I'm a real conservative, and so I only deal with people as individuals, not as avatars of social groups. Or, to put it another way, maybe Dave could spell out exactly who he thinks should have been convicted, but wasn't. If its as bad the femiloons say, he should have no trouble coming up with twenty-five names, right ?
Yes, reducing the number of rapists on the street would indeed lower the number of rapes. In fact, I have a plan drawn up to do just that. I call it 'Operation Twenty-Five' - how about it Bullingdon Boy ?
This is proof positive that the femiloons are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the left. Here we have a proven method of protecting women by ensuring that identified rapists are taken off the streets, but the Hillarys think its a yawner. Not that they're a bunch of man-hating kooks, but they're campaigning to class everything as rape, even while real rapists get to laugh at the system.
In fact, it's worse than that. Since the seven years is an average figure for the sentence given, it includes serial offenders. First timers probably get less - even before the magic of parole is taken into account.
Of course, this moment of insight is just a fluke. Cameron effortlessly manages to steer back into the fever swamps of femiloonacy:
Not that I'm sceptical about the existence of certain communities where rape is a way of life, but in so far as snivelling liberals would rather have bamboo pushed under their fingernails than mention that, I guess they must mean the general population.
Seriously, folks: is there anyone out who has even one friend or acquaintance who thinks rape is kind of OK ? According to Cameron - well, actually according to the Hillarys he's pandering to today - 15 million people in the UK think rape is just ducky, and no one who isn't a lemon-sucking bowser has noticed ?
Of course it all works out, but only if you define rape so loosely that there's almost nothing which doesn't count. Ditto, for the supposedly huge numbers of 'unreported' rapes. Here's a free clue: if it takes an interview with some DM wearing harridan weeks after the fact to find out a crime has been committed, it may not be a real crime.
But all the above is just prologue. If chutzpah was tachyons, Cameron's next statement would leave a hole in the Universe:
Someone like IDS - or Laban for that matter - can talk about cultural voids and moral failures, but in so far as just about the only thing Cameron is known for is sneering at traditional morality and social conservatives, he's not the man best placed to level these charges. It's sweet that Cameron doesn't approve of sexual assault, but a grabbag of north London prejudices does not a morality make. It's noticeable that even here Cameron can't bring himself to make a moral case about why rape is wrong. Then again, if 15 million potential voters genuinely thought rape was kind of OK, Cameron would surely have put Mike Tyson on the A-List.
For proof of the moral quagmire of Cameronism, consider this next statement:
But as to the point itself, again I say: huh ? Weren't social conservatives meant to be a bunch of squares who wanted to keep women in the kitchen ? I'm really having a hard time blaming Ann Widdicombe for the sexualisation of women. Besides, isn't this all part of the modern Britian we should be at ease with ?
There's more too:
Again, we're back with the same problem. It's splendid that Cameron does not approve of rape but, with the exception of some fan service for the Hillarys, he can contribute nothing to the debate. I'm thinking one of the key drivers of 'moral failure' might be a would be PM whose own morality appears to be a Frankensteinian collection of right on talking points. Cameroonian morality appears to consist of claiming we should chill out and accept stuff he likes, while opposing stuff he doesn't. If that's the standard, who isn't moral ?
England and Wales have the lowest rape conviction rates of any of the leading European countries, David Cameron will disclose as he outlines a series of proposals to tighten the laws on sex crimes.Yep, it took some doing, but Call Me Dave might just have found a stupid argument against rape. For the sake of Cameron's insane argument, what should the benchmark be ? Should we aim for the European average ? That sounds kind of low - why not aim for the top of the table ? For that matter, let's put some real distance between us and our Euroweenie neighbours: 50% convictions by next June.
Well, why not ? But wait.... I've just remembered. I'm a real conservative, and so I only deal with people as individuals, not as avatars of social groups. Or, to put it another way, maybe Dave could spell out exactly who he thinks should have been convicted, but wasn't. If its as bad the femiloons say, he should have no trouble coming up with twenty-five names, right ?
England and Wales have the lowest rape conviction rates of any of the leading European countries, David Cameron will disclose as he outlines a series of proposals to tighten the laws on sex crimes.Ditto.
A study commissioned by the Conservatives found that just 5.7 per cent of reported cases result in successful convictions.
The average jail sentence given to convicted rapists has fallen to less than seven years.Professor Hans Bronstein, author of 'The Stopped Clock Hypothesis' just e-mailed to say 'See, I told you!'
Yes, reducing the number of rapists on the street would indeed lower the number of rapes. In fact, I have a plan drawn up to do just that. I call it 'Operation Twenty-Five' - how about it Bullingdon Boy ?
This is proof positive that the femiloons are a wholly-owned subsidiary of the left. Here we have a proven method of protecting women by ensuring that identified rapists are taken off the streets, but the Hillarys think its a yawner. Not that they're a bunch of man-hating kooks, but they're campaigning to class everything as rape, even while real rapists get to laugh at the system.
In fact, it's worse than that. Since the seven years is an average figure for the sentence given, it includes serial offenders. First timers probably get less - even before the magic of parole is taken into account.
Of course, this moment of insight is just a fluke. Cameron effortlessly manages to steer back into the fever swamps of femiloonacy:
The Tory leader proposes tightening Britain's rape laws and ensuring that children are taught "no means no" as part of the school curriculum.Yep, that's what's wrong with our schools: not enough anti-male bigotry.
....The Conservative leader will also unveil plans to influence children after a recent Amnesty International study found that one in four young people thinks it is acceptable for a boy to "expect to have sex with a girl" if she has been "very flirtatious".Folks, I can't tell you what a warm feeling it gives me to see a Conservative Party leader quote approvingly from a study by Amnesia Intentional. Still, nice to see the 'non-partisan human group' so openly carrying water for the left's lunatic fringe. Is the enabling terrorism business a little slow at the moment, or what (and would it be OK with those guys if the boy just put a bomb under her car) ?
He will say: "Studies have shown that as many as one in two young men believes there are some circumstances when it's OK to force a woman to have sex.Which studies ? When ? Where ?
Not that I'm sceptical about the existence of certain communities where rape is a way of life, but in so far as snivelling liberals would rather have bamboo pushed under their fingernails than mention that, I guess they must mean the general population.
Seriously, folks: is there anyone out who has even one friend or acquaintance who thinks rape is kind of OK ? According to Cameron - well, actually according to the Hillarys he's pandering to today - 15 million people in the UK think rape is just ducky, and no one who isn't a lemon-sucking bowser has noticed ?
Of course it all works out, but only if you define rape so loosely that there's almost nothing which doesn't count. Ditto, for the supposedly huge numbers of 'unreported' rapes. Here's a free clue: if it takes an interview with some DM wearing harridan weeks after the fact to find out a crime has been committed, it may not be a real crime.
But all the above is just prologue. If chutzpah was tachyons, Cameron's next statement would leave a hole in the Universe:
To my mind, this is an example of moral collapse.If someone on the right said this, the Cameroonatics would have worked themselves into a collective fit of sneering right about now. And no, it isn't a road to Damascus conversion neither.
We need widespread cultural change, and addressing this moral failure represents a real challenge to British society.We've had the cultural change. Back in the day we didn't had an epidemic of criminality, then a whole bunch of folks not unlike Dave's supa-sofisticayted clique decided we need to get hip to the beat. Now we live in a cess pit.
Someone like IDS - or Laban for that matter - can talk about cultural voids and moral failures, but in so far as just about the only thing Cameron is known for is sneering at traditional morality and social conservatives, he's not the man best placed to level these charges. It's sweet that Cameron doesn't approve of sexual assault, but a grabbag of north London prejudices does not a morality make. It's noticeable that even here Cameron can't bring himself to make a moral case about why rape is wrong. Then again, if 15 million potential voters genuinely thought rape was kind of OK, Cameron would surely have put Mike Tyson on the A-List.
For proof of the moral quagmire of Cameronism, consider this next statement:
The past decade or so has seen the growing sexualisation of our society, where sex is aimed at an ever younger audience and it's cool to treat women like sex objects.Again, this is straight out of the femiloons playbook. They want to spin the actions of degenerate savages into some kind of broadcast condemnation of men in general. Well, no. Rape is the fault of rapists. Hunt them down and eliminate them: no more rapes. This shouldn't be news to a soi-dissant conservative.
But as to the point itself, again I say: huh ? Weren't social conservatives meant to be a bunch of squares who wanted to keep women in the kitchen ? I'm really having a hard time blaming Ann Widdicombe for the sexualisation of women. Besides, isn't this all part of the modern Britian we should be at ease with ?
There's more too:
Mr Cameron will also highlight the importance of rape crisis centres - whose number has fallen from 68 in 1984 to 45 today.Well, OK, that sounds bad, but maybe it's just the natural progression from the pioneer days, to the more professional set up of the modern era. Or maybe not. I don't know, and I bet Cameron doesn't either, but it hardly argues for his decentralising tendencies that he can come out with this stuff.
Again, we're back with the same problem. It's splendid that Cameron does not approve of rape but, with the exception of some fan service for the Hillarys, he can contribute nothing to the debate. I'm thinking one of the key drivers of 'moral failure' might be a would be PM whose own morality appears to be a Frankensteinian collection of right on talking points. Cameroonian morality appears to consist of claiming we should chill out and accept stuff he likes, while opposing stuff he doesn't. If that's the standard, who isn't moral ?
No comments:
Post a Comment