Blog powered by Typepad

« Of course he's bloody black! | Main | Murder Inc. #30 (Mar 08) »

Friday, 14 March 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

A few bad parents and the moral order is unraveling...get a grip.

No sympathy for the victims?

Well that's my lifestyle well and truly trashed! More seriously I really don't mind what people get up to in their leisure time (within reason) but I am increasingly tired of the belief that one can drug, drink and shag without facing the consequences.

That doesn't mean one can't have sympathy for the victims. No-one deserves to have their child harmed or killed but common sense tells us that certain behaviours and lifestyles increase the risk.

For example my dear old papa died of smoking induced lung cancer. He started smoking long before the risks were known but continued to do so once the facts were public knowledge. Naturally the entire family were devastated by this blow and I can't say I was popular for refusing to lay the blame for his illness at the door of the navy who bought him his first packet of fags.The truth is he was responsible for his health, he took a risk and it didn't work out as planned. As a smoker I hope I'll be luckier but if not I'll have been the author of my own misfortune. God willing I'll cheat senility whatever I do in the future!

Similarly I'd have every sympathy for someone who was burgled having gone out and left a window open. They have every right to expect their property to remain untouched without their permission but how likely is it that everyone will respect that right? They would not be to blame for being burgled but they are responsible for exposing themselves to increased risk.

Much as we might wish it to be the world is not a play pen. Actions or lack of have consequences. It's a painful lesson and one usually learned in adolescence.

In the case of the two mothers above I'd agree that they were irresponsible but I also deplore the other extreme of jailing children under the permanent parental gaze in case a paedo strikes. By respectable modern standards my parents were grossly negligent, allowing me to swan off to 'the field' unsupervised from five years old. But it was all good character building stuff. The day I had to remove a slug from my right pigtail with my bare hands after rolling down 'the big hill' alone was the day I grew a backbone of steel. We shouldn't forget that as appalling as the crime statistic are the odds remain against 'stranger danger'.

I'd hate to see a return to the old ways. The shame my great grandmother (a perfectly respectable woman)lived with for having 'illegitimate' stamped on her birth certificate was terrible and a blight on a good and decent woman's life. But it seems clear that 'anything goes' isn't reaping the results we'd hoped for. It might work for people with nice homes, lifestyles and good jobs to prevent them descending into total chaos but when filtered down to the folk at the bottom of the heap, the results are far from impressive. A rethink is long overdue.

At this moment I have the Shannon Matthews situation down as extreme familial disfunction, which as far as I know pre-dates the permissive society by, oh, several thousand years........ A different scenario to the idiot in Goa.

I take it you're not wanting that lesbian orgy clip you emailed me about? ;)

David this is rather appalling, your having a pop at the mother of a missing child (now found) and the mother of a murdered child.

Do victims of crime have to be respectable people?

"Do victims of crime have to be respectable people?"

If I go down to London Zoo, scale the wall to the lion enclosure, tie a steak round my neck and jump in, am I a 'victim of a big cat attack'..?

'ZitZit', I know that reading and writing are not your strong point and oddly enough I don't blame you for it. In that particular area of your life you are indeed a victim because you were forced into the hands of our state-controlled 'edukashun servis' and so were never taught. So, I repeat, it is not your fault but try reading my post again, bearing in mind my use of irony, and try and follow the logic of my argument; that is, that the mothers concerned cannot be accused of doing wrong because in this day and age there is no right or wrong. They have simply followed the 'diktat' and the example of rich, well-educated, middle-class liberals who should know better, indeed, they *do* know better but they are determined not to allow any restraints on their own degenerate life-styles.

If you wish to find out about "victims of crime", please read my latest 'Murder Inc' post above where you will find that victims are of all types, but the vast majority are from the lower classes. They, of course, are ill-equipped to defend themselves against the criminal classes, which is a pity on two counts. First, because less well-off people can ill-afford to be the victims of crime; second, because if only the murderers and armed robbers would attack the middle-classes more often the outrage from those able to express themselves all too well would be such that, with a bit of luck, the likes of 'Woy' Jenkins would be dug up and have what remains of his heart pierced with a stake!

'Clairwil', then 'Ill Man':

I think, 'Clairwil', that you have to take the repurcussions of responsibility for one's actions a bit further than the merely personal. It's harder to do because the further you get away from 'I did action A and the result was that re-action B hit me', the harder it is to trace the line of responsibility. But I would argue that, inconvenient though it is, it exists. Thus, if I drink, drug and shag for Britain (chance would be a fine thing!) then in my tiny circle one or two others will feel less restraint at doing the same, particularly if they are young; and so, like a tiny pebble in a pool, the ripples spread. It is my contention that since the '60s the ripples have become waves! For a woman to have multiple children by numerous different men and not to be scorned and reviled by other women around her is simply the real-life example of what I am talking about.

I will also risk your wrath by suggesting that the feminisation of Britain (and elsewhere) has been a root cause in the destruction of two key elements in society - shame and hypocracy. To be ashamed is to acknowledge that one has done wrong. Today people are rarely 'ashamed', instead they are victims and not under any circumstances to be blamed. Equally, hypocrisy serves the same purpose as shame because the malefactors are aware of their bad behaviour but simply seek to hide it from the public gaze. Today hardly anyone is a hypocrite for the simple reason that most of them don't even realise that what they have done is wrong - look no further than Westminster for some prize examples.

However, do not suppose that I believe that in an 'age of respectability' like the '50s there was no sin, on the contrary, there was plenty of it, but because people were ashamed and hypocritical, it was kept hidden but it was also kept to a minimum. This is the great paradox (and all of life is stuffed with paradox), that the liberals' cry for openess without guilt, so attractive to those who fancy a bit of naughtiness themselves, has simply opened the gates to evil beyond belief. (Nor, I must emphasise, should you think that I am claiming to be without a considerable number of sins on my own record, but at least I know them for what they are.)

'Ill Man', get a grip, it wasn't the lesbian orgy film I wanted, it was one of Teabag's 'slice 'n' dice' movies I was after!

I agree, things like child molestation/neglect, spousal abuse or alcoholism were much smaller problems when whole sections of society pretended they didn't happen....... I like yr style Duff.

Naughty 'Ill Man', I may have to insist that you take your medicine!

They were much smaller (but not non-existent) problems back in the middle of the 20th c. because any infringement brought down on the miscreant's head the worst punishment of all - the outraged opprobrium of the whole of society, but especially their own circle of relations and friends. Thus, for example, the number of illegal abortions, much exaggerated by the pro-abortionists at the time, was minimal compared to the number of legal abortions carried out today - by several thousand percent! The reason was quite simple, having a child out of wedlock was considered a disgrace. Tough? Yes, but babies lived unlike the mass killing that goes on today; and those that were born were, on the whole, cherished and cared for. Just read any of the social diaries of old, working-class people of the first half of the 20th c. where the sort of families that Shannon Matthews was unfortunate enough to be born into wouldn't have been tolerated for a second.

The past is so easy to pin down I find. Even the most brutalising and vile situations take on a warm, fuzzy glow in the face of the the new onslaughts, especially if the memories are second hand.

"The past is so easy to pin down"

Well, the 20th c. past is easy enough because the statistics are there to help you - if you want to look. For example the murder rate in 1960 was about 250 p.a., today it is 3 times that amount.

Yes, the 1950s was a period in which hypocrisy flourished, but as I pointed out above, hypocrisy is a signal that people recognise that there is 'right' and 'wrong', 'moral' and 'immoral', and that a very fierce, social backlash will ensue if the 'rules' are broken. Today, that hardly exists. Thugs and thieves, cheats and liars, are not subject to opprobrium, instead they are accredited with victim status and great efforts are made to 'understand' them.

But the fault, dear Ill Man, is not in our stars but in ourselves. Since the great liberal revolution smashed the staus quo there is now virtually no outside authority to enforce a moral code, God is dead, his vicars on earth are wet and useless and the government is an enemy to us all. The martyrs to this brave, new liberal world are the likes of the late Gary Newlove, slaughtered in front of his children by a gang of ferral 'youfs' fired up on drink and drugs in the middle of the day because their parents, encouraged by the spirit of the age, were too fat, lazy, cruel and uncaring to instil discipline into them.

All right David, I may not pick up on the irony, bit that may be because you are not known for your satire. Calling me thick, touched a nerve?

David your accusing Ms McKeown and Ms Matthews of child neglect/abuse. Why do I say this? Because this post is a toned down rehash of the bile that Alison Pearson produced in the previous weeks Daily Mail, your paper of choice.

This post is outrageously dishonest, and when pulled up on it you respond with ad-hominem abuse.

If you have concerns about Ms McKeown's and Ms Matthew's children give social services a call (Don't use this as an excuse to rail aginst social workers, I'm not interested).

David, your a hypocrite. Taking the moral high-ground and defaming two women that have had a child abducted and a child murdered respectively. That is wrong David and you know it and firing chaff off about moral decay will not hide this salient fact.

'ZitZit', first, irony is not the same as satire.

Nor did I call you "thick", I only pointed out that your English writing skills are limited, as you have demonstrated in the comment above this, but that it was *not* your fault. I will repeat it, it is *not* your fault because you were not taught how to express yourself properly. Personally, I would like to add to my murder statistics by killing, slowly, the lazy, useless teachers you were unfortunate enough to draw in the lottery of life.

Nor is your reading up to much, I must assume, given that my post contained the following lines:

"A few eyebrows have been raised here and there and questions asked concerning the behaviour and life styles of the two mothers involved. I cannot imagine why! They have done no wrong. The reason is simple - there is no right or wrong anymore!"

My rage is concentrated entirely at the posh middle-class liberal libertines who, in furtherance of their own degenerate life-styles, insisted on destroying a moral framework that protected more people, especially the truly vulnerable, better than the 'anything goes jungle' that now exists.

Give it a rest David, your not a prize winning novelist.

Why not deal with my arguments, you do understand them? don't you? you just don't want to answer them.

Another point David; I know the difference between fiction and non-fiction, unlike your good self. I blame your teachers.

Well, I didn't then, out of kindness, but I will now - you're thick, 'ZitZit', but you are right about one thing, I do not wish to answer what you are pleased to call your points but which appear to me to be a confused rag-bag of semi-illiterate, incoherent belches. Been down the boozer spending your dole money, have you?

I think, 'Clairwil', that you have to take the repurcussions of responsibility for one's actions a bit further than the merely personal.'

That is why I don't smoke, drink, take drugs or have sex round the nippers. In fact my love of a 'certain lifestyle' is why I don't have children. Motherhood an decadence are not compatible. That is the best I can manage with the temptations on offer.

I think you're right that an environment can be created where drugs, promiscuity and violence seem normal. Which is why I believe in a sprinkling of hypocrisy where adult behaviour is concerned.

I hope that sexual and physical abuse of children was more common in the past than it is now. The truth is we'll never know given the vast increase in reporting.

However one wonders what the effect is of more men than ever taking up residence in the family home for brief periods. There's many a woman been horrified to discover that her husband of 20 years has been abusing the kids.

Common sense alone tells us that the risk must increase when children are treated to serial step dads.

Anecdotal evidence I know but I've met more abused children in my job of six years in one of Glasgow's rough bits than in the preceding 27 years of my life. Most of it carried out by step-fathers and step-brothers.

It has long been my belief that when anything goes the weakest pay the price. I don't mind a bit of survival of the fittest in nature but as the basis for a society it leaves a lot to be desired.

Actually, I suspect you would be a super mum!

You are right to suspect that many crimes, like child abuse, were more surreptitious than today but judging by all the (so to speak) normal crimes, all of which were lower in the '50s than today, my belief is that the weight of 'respectability' kept it in check to a certain degree.

Now, off you go and make some babies!

The tendency of step-fathers to maltreat and even kill their step-children has been explained by some people in terms of evolutionary psychology, something akin to the way in which male lions who finally achieve dominance in a pride of lionesses immediately kill any off-spring that are not theirs - try "The Red Queen" by Matt Ridley, a fascinating book.

The comments to this entry are closed.