So now we know: while the BBC was running approximately eleventy billion pieces about 'paedo priests', they were covering for a predator in their own ranks.
Personally, I'm shocked - shocked - to find that the BBC has been sticking two fingers up to any rational standards of decency or accountability, but consider what else it says about their standards. In amongst criticising the Church for being too soft on paedophiles, the BBC has criticised the anti-paedophile movement for being too tough on the low-life.
The BBC has thrown every pot and pan it can lay its hands on at anyone who criticises the legal system's appeasement of paedophiles. They've complained about supposed vigilantism, claimed it's a threat to artistic freedom, cited bogus studies of successful rehabilitation and so on, ad infinitum, and all the time they insisted they totally did oppose paedophiles too, and it was just they genuinely thought that any tactic anyone ever suggested to combat them was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now we find out that the real reason the BBC didn't like the anti-paedophile movement was becuase it just didn't think paedophilia was that big a thing. Cool out, daddeo. Each to his own, huh?
It's always like that. Just as 'anti-zionists' always turn out to be people who think Mel Gibson is a bold truth teller, so the folks complaining about the tactics of the anti-paedophile movement always turn out to be people who don't oppose it anyway.
Personally, I'm shocked - shocked - to find that the BBC has been sticking two fingers up to any rational standards of decency or accountability, but consider what else it says about their standards. In amongst criticising the Church for being too soft on paedophiles, the BBC has criticised the anti-paedophile movement for being too tough on the low-life.
The BBC has thrown every pot and pan it can lay its hands on at anyone who criticises the legal system's appeasement of paedophiles. They've complained about supposed vigilantism, claimed it's a threat to artistic freedom, cited bogus studies of successful rehabilitation and so on, ad infinitum, and all the time they insisted they totally did oppose paedophiles too, and it was just they genuinely thought that any tactic anyone ever suggested to combat them was wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now we find out that the real reason the BBC didn't like the anti-paedophile movement was becuase it just didn't think paedophilia was that big a thing. Cool out, daddeo. Each to his own, huh?
It's always like that. Just as 'anti-zionists' always turn out to be people who think Mel Gibson is a bold truth teller, so the folks complaining about the tactics of the anti-paedophile movement always turn out to be people who don't oppose it anyway.
3 comments:
Me too. He's dead, and dead men tell no tales. They are also conveniently unable to employ the services of libel lawyers.
Julia,
..or behead anyone.
Now then, now then, now then, guys and gals, how about that then?
Apparently three more women have come forward complaining of being sexually assaulted by Sa-Vile. The red-topped paper covering the story shows the three, individually, as they are today and as they were at the time of the assault. The headline reads, "Now then, Now then, Now then."
Noggin the Nog
Post a Comment