And?

‘He is a convicted paedophile and yet he is ­making a large sum of money,’ a source close to his finances told the Sunday People.

‘All he has to do is sit in his cell and his fortune grows.’


Incredible
whatabouttery there.

13 thoughts on “And?”

  1. So Much for Subtlety

    It is worse than whatabouttery. It is that we know the prison system does not punish people and we want people punished.

    It is a shame that they should be picking on Rolf Harris who is probably innocent, but the need to see someone punished is right, strong and not met by the justice system.

    Lynchings will not be long behind. (You know, so to speak)

  2. Rolf is 84. He’ll be lucky to live to see the outside of prison.

    Not sure how much good his Jake the Peg royalties are going to do him now.

    BTW, one good thing about Paedogeddon is that they’ll probably never show those obnoxious “I Wuv The 80’s” clip programmes again.

    You know the ones – where a string of Z-list celebrities (who must’ve been foetuses at the time) pretend to have perfect recall of what happened on “It’s A Royal Knockout”.

  3. Is the Mail suggesting that the assets of convicted criminals should be seized by the State? Or just the income from those assets?

    Imagine the outrage from the Mail if the State seized the Beloved Family Investment (sorry, home) and flogged it at auction. House prices would collapse!

  4. The Mail is deranged. I mean, the Guardian is mad but in a predictable, anti-British, anti-Western reflexively self-loathing way.

    But the Mail is seriously deranged. If it was a person it would be sectioned.

  5. “BTW, one good thing about Paedogeddon is that they’ll probably never show those obnoxious “I Wuv The 80’s” clip programmes again.”

    Well that’s Stuart Maconie’s career over then.

  6. Future DM comments

    “He’s been convicted of parking on a double yellow line yet he still has a car.”

    “He’s been convicted of building an unlicenced garden shed yet he still has a garden.”

    “He’s been convicted of having the wrong sort of roof insulation yet he still has a roof over his head.”

    And so on.

  7. Interesting to note that in the comments under that article many of the ones that indicate sympathy for RH, or indicate doubts about his conviction are heavily up voted.

    Maybe not everyone is buying the Paedogeddon line that we are being fed at the moment.

  8. Since it is very highly likely that he didn’t do what he was convicted of doing and was railroaded by femminista scum I have no problem still liking the guy.

  9. On a broader note – and excuse the glittery tinfoil hat – does anyone have an issue with the selective prosecutions going on here?

    Old white guys are prosecuted for an unwarranted tit feel 30 years ago and yet 1000’s on rapes go investigated let alone prosecuted in towns like Rotherham?

    It’s almost as if an effort is there to create a white paedo boogeyman, so when the actions of our “enrichers” are questioned, the BBC/Guardian etc can indulge is a grotesque game of “whatboutery”?

  10. On a broader note – and excuse the glittery tinfoil hat – does anyone have an issue with the selective prosecutions going on here?

    No tinfoil hat required. It’s exactly the same as that gynaecologist being done for what quite clearly wasn’t FGM. There, not even being quite clearly non-white helped him, with the CPS at least.

    There is an agenda, although it isn’t shared by everybody in power*. Prosecuting “the patriarchy” meets that agenda. Denying special privilege to favoured special interest groups does not.

    See David Thompson’s site about US campus feminism, for example.

    * Although a lot of people believe that “Common Purpose” is doing everything it can to change this. I have insufficient reliable information on that angle.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *