Just like a certain, well-known broadcaster, if social workers aren't a bunch of agenda-driven leftist kooks, why exactly does the left keep closing ranks round them? How come PC Plod never qualifies for this 'not serious physical abuse' exemption liberals have just discovered? Or is it just restricted to deserving cases like pushers, terrorists and muggers, rather than toddlers?
All of which ignores the fact that the left's argument doesn't even stand up. Forget the nitpicking and the loopy Third Gunman hypothesising, the basic problem is contained in their argument that, sure, 'Baby P' got tortured a bit but, hey, that's how it is with the underclass. Yes, liberals, that's what we're saying: the same lunatics who will go to any lengths to harass Joe Public treat child abuse in designated victim groups as just part of the culture.
Ditto, the left claim that the only-mildly-abused Baby P would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling brother. In their preferred sequence of events, the brother popped up and killed the child before anyone in authority could react - sort of like the Pearl Harbour of child abuse cases. Who, ask the left, could guess a convicted paedophile would be a risk to children?
Well, just about everyone on the right actually.
It is the left - more specifically, the hipster element - that spends its time claiming that, sure, paedophilia is 'bad' but not in the sense of something you have to do anything about. In so far as a convicted paedophile was free to move into the same house as a young child with no one being any the wiser - which is the left's story in a nutshell - then this case pretty much confirms everything the right - and even many principled leftists - have been saying for years. Current doctrine for dealing with paedophiles is a national disgrace. It'd be great if this really means even the hipster are climbing on board the Reality Express, but coherency has never really been their thing.
All of which ignores the fact that the left's argument doesn't even stand up. Forget the nitpicking and the loopy Third Gunman hypothesising, the basic problem is contained in their argument that, sure, 'Baby P' got tortured a bit but, hey, that's how it is with the underclass. Yes, liberals, that's what we're saying: the same lunatics who will go to any lengths to harass Joe Public treat child abuse in designated victim groups as just part of the culture.
Ditto, the left claim that the only-mildly-abused Baby P would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for that meddling brother. In their preferred sequence of events, the brother popped up and killed the child before anyone in authority could react - sort of like the Pearl Harbour of child abuse cases. Who, ask the left, could guess a convicted paedophile would be a risk to children?
Well, just about everyone on the right actually.
It is the left - more specifically, the hipster element - that spends its time claiming that, sure, paedophilia is 'bad' but not in the sense of something you have to do anything about. In so far as a convicted paedophile was free to move into the same house as a young child with no one being any the wiser - which is the left's story in a nutshell - then this case pretty much confirms everything the right - and even many principled leftists - have been saying for years. Current doctrine for dealing with paedophiles is a national disgrace. It'd be great if this really means even the hipster are climbing on board the Reality Express, but coherency has never really been their thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment