18 comments on “Dear God above: Srsly? Beatrix Campbell?

  1. And lest you remain in any doubt on the matter, Paul Ehrlich is a Foreign Member of the Royal Society.

  2. This is the satanic thingy? Wow.

    I find the vilification of Lady Butler-Sloss quite incomprehensible. She was an excellent jurist and would have made an excellent first female Law Lord – unlike the one who made it, Lady Hale – a hack.

  3. Following yesterday’s post about how barely half of teenagers live with their fathers, could this be part of the reason why Britain seems particularly afflicted with paedophiles? It must be easier to get your hands on a child who has only one guardian, not two.

  4. Instead of liberating children’s stories her report bequeathed a new regime for disclosure: children’s evidence was to be shared with strangers, in a strange room, with a video, for under an hour. It was about patrolling, not releasing, what children might say.”

    Hmmm. What if one of those stories was about a radical feminist lesbian (but I repeat myself) who dressed up as a pagan High Priestess and ritually molested children?

    Should we, uh, “liberate” that story if there isn’t any evidence or common sense to suggest it’s true? Fire up a witch hunt against lesbian feminists? Take their child relatives into care?

    Of course not. That wouldn’t be right.

    But in the crazy mind of radfems, it’s OK to encourage hatred, fear, and literal witch hunts against men, because radfems are mentally ill women who hate and fear men.

    This is what tends to happen when you view relations between men and women as a class struggle.

    Ms Campbell is not well. The Guardian giving her a platform to share her conspiracy theories is no different from giving David Icke a platform to discuss his views on Space Reptiles, or Elliot Rodger a slot to share his wisdom on women.

  5. Andrew M – children of single mothers are considerably more likely to be neglected, beaten, or sexually abused than children who live with their fathers.

    The reason for this is that single mothers are often bad mothers, and they tend to shack up with a series of boyfriends. Without the father around to protect his children, they’re at the mercy of whichever exciting bad boy is giving mummy the tingles this month.

    Fathers are the best defence against child abuse.

  6. Steve>

    “Fathers are the best defence against child abuse.”

    That’s a non sequitur. Plainly, from what you’ve said, good mothers are the important part.

  7. Andrew M
    July 15, 2014 at 10:23 am

    Following yesterday’s post about how barely half of teenagers live with their fathers, could this be part of the reason why Britain seems particularly afflicted with paedophiles? It must be easier to get your hands on a child who has only one guardian, not two.

    And also safer as they’re less likely to have the father coming round and taking the law in to his own hands after finding out someone’s been been fiddling with his “little princess”.

  8. Dave – I’ll share my working: children from fatherless homes are much more likely to be abused, become drug addicts, or end up in jail.

    Therefore, children need their dads.

    Good mothers are generally in a long term stable relationship with the father of their children, and don’t have kids by multiple men. So the two aren’t mutually exclusive.

  9. “Fathers are the best defence against child abuse.”

    Indeed. The most likely scenario for child abuse/neglect/murder is one of a child living in a household with its mother and an unrelated male. The genetic father is usually not involved.

  10. Like Erlich, they keep on being welcomed back to the wicket. No failure or past humiliation is enough to shake their standing with the Left. Everything is forgotten.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.