D.J. Webb
I prefer longer articles, but this is just a quick thought.
We have heard – correctly – that political correctness around race and culture is the reason why tens of thousands of girls (mainly girls???) were allowed to be abused by ethnic-minority gangs. This is unfortunately the case.
But an additional aspect has been entirely overlooked.
They were allowed to abuse the girls because they were children’s home girls. The people in the social protection teams in the council looked down on the girls because they were in children’s homes. They would not have allowed it to carry on if the girls had been children in middle-class families with parents to speak up for them. The council regard children from broken homes as a kind of underclass among children.
You can just imagine them saying to one another in the council offices, “I bet the girls were up for it. You know those children’s home girls — you only have to give them a few cigarettes and then you can do what you like with them”.
The fate of these children is a function, not only of multiculturalism, but of the state-promoted collapse of the traditional family.
The state can never be an adequate protector of children because racial/cultural and class issues–the despising of the girls by the councils and police is fundamentally a class issue–get in the way.
Discover more from The Libertarian Alliance
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Related posts:
Powered by YARPP.
I would be interested to know how the author (and those, not necessarily the author included, who have joined in the hysteria over ‘Rotherham’) define ‘abuse’? He uses the term repeatedly in the fashion of a well-trained house parrot. I see this as important because all facets of analysis and discussion are predicated on certain ideas and linguistic deployments about sexual behaviour that have assumed a doctrinal character and are implicitly assumed to be valid without further scrutiny or critical examination.
Terms such as ‘abuse’, ‘child sexual exploitation’ and ‘grooming’ are being thrown around like confetti at a wedding, but what do they actually mean? Do these terms in fact mean anything at all outside the juridical constructs of the law courts and proceedings in Hansard? Do they relate empirically in any significant statistical sense?
I agree that adult men who sleep with underage girls are behaving in a vile manner, and in many cases deserve criminal prosecution – especially in the Rotherham case, as many of these girls were without familial support and so could be seen as truly vulnerable – but is there any responsibility on some of the girls themselves? Yes, many of these girls will have been victims of genuine abuse – I’m not doubting it – but can we fairly say this is the case for all or even most of them? I have read the Jay Report and I find the methodology adopted in it wholly unconvincing, if not significantly flawed, and I also found in it the typical (and rather cowardly) tendency to blame police and amorphous officialdom for the wrong-doing of others, always interpreting official actions as reckless or neglectful and slanting the facts accordingly, even when there might be a genuine explanation. But I will not labour that here as my purpose is not a dry, technical analysis or a tour through random anecdotes, but rather to consider thematically certain overarching problems and questions.
I think there are wider implications in a proper critical dissection of all this. If we accept that women (including legally underage but biologically fertile females) do bear at least some personal responsibility for their own actions – including unwise sexual choices – then the issues and questions prompted could be quite different. Instead of this ‘victim-predator’ narrative, what if we assumed as our starting point the position that many of these girls are not victims in any real sense but made choices for themselves and must bear at least some responsibility for their own actions? (I put aside here the technicality of statutory rape and other offences, such as ‘child sexual abuse’, which I certainly don’t condone as they often represent disgusting actions on the part of vile men, but they are legal constructs and are not germane to my area of concern here). I, for one, have yet to be convinced by these neo-Dickensian images conjured up of ‘vulnerable young girls’ in childrens’ homes. I know they exist, but I would also observe that teenage girls tend to be more mature than boys of the same age.
To generalise: we men are primed to be ‘daft’. We innovate, take risks; we’re Nature’s Mavericks. We are here to chase and impress females. Women (girls) by contrast are primed to be sensible. They are the carers and nurturers. It’s a generally-known truism, I think, that teenage girls tend to be more mature than most adult men in some respects, and the gap in maturity only increases when young women fall pregnant. I don’t doubt there has been abuse and suffering, but I also think that many of these girls will have known exactly what they were doing and I’m afraid to say that I am not willing to buy into what I think is the manipulative and highly emotive interpretation put on sexual relations between men and women, a template that has been applied here in extremis. It is much harder to demand that ‘victims’ should take responsibility for their plight, but if we think these ‘victims’ should bear responsibility for their own actions, then a number of narratives associated with this issue change in some intriguing ways. Here I will concentrate on the ‘racial’ narrative, not because I am some sort of froth-mouthed racist, but because of the fundamental importance of genes and identity to the replication of our culture.
Going back to the second (alternative) narrative suggested above, if you accept it as the headline analysis, then it’s no longer: ‘Pakistani Muslim men rape young white girls’ so much as ‘Young white girls choose to sleep with Pakistani Muslim men’. I actually find this second, alternative, version of the racial narrative much more disturbing in its own way. The first is tragic and disturbing enough, but the second narrative arguably has still deeper and more far-reaching implications for society: socially, culturally, morally and racially (genetically). It’s not a cute reversal if you think, first, we should live in a society based on personal responsibility and second, if you believe that much of the concepts and language being deployed are actually designed to: (i). patronise women and remove from them personal responsibility; (ii). sexually terrorise men; and (iii). expand the remit of certain interventionist groups in society – especially middle class professionals like Alexis Jay, who now seem to make up our only indigenous industries.
One last heresy: let me discuss briefly the role of Muslims in this; or rather, in the interpretation of this, since it seems there is no doubt that Pakistani Muslim men have played a starring role in this particular example of dark ‘news pornography’. The popular interpretation is to blame Muslims qua Muslim/Islam and also to ascribe much of the responsibility to the ubiquity of political correctness and the fear of offending an immigrant-heritage community and so on. I am not convinced by these explanations for official inaction. First, and to take a step back from the problem, I believe that Muslims in the West are being used as scapegoats for a great many problems that have multifarious and complex causes. They are easy scapegoats because they are, and look, very different to white Europeans, and also because mass (revolutionary) immigration is a grave wrong being inflicted on our civilisation, not to mention deeply unpopular – and Muslims represent its most prominent footsoldiers from a European point-of-view. But Muslims are being used and exploited in this respect. There are undoubtedly issues with their intergration into European society because almost-all Muslims are Middle Eastern (or Asian in some other sense) rather than European. The significance of this is denied, sometimes dismissed outright – even ridiculed – and so ordinary Muslims are left to somehow resolve these existential issues. How does a Muslim man relieve the sex drive in a society in which he might not be very attractive to most white women and might not be able to have sex before marriage or conspicuously enter into intimate relationships with Muslim females? One answer is young white girls with no moral values living in northern English towns devastated by neo-thatcherism. A happy coincidence is that these areas are where most of the young Muslim men live.
To me, this is fundamentally racial, but my questions are different to those of the far-Right. I must ask: Are we Europe or are we a kind of consumer mass of people with a muddled identity sharing a Continental geopolitical space? Is our ‘white European’ identity being quietly replaced with another because a significant (and growing) minority of our women (including underage girls, it would seem) choose not to sleep with white men? Is that what is meant when the do-gooders and official liars talk about dealing with these ‘challenges’? Not so much normalising rape as normalising civilisational (racial/genetic) extinction. Is that the truth? The hysteria from the far-Right and other quarters is part of a natural (and understandable) reaction to this, but it is predicated on a denial of the plain facts in front of us. I could go on with these questions, but I lack the time to be truly exhaustive.
No doubt someone is going to accuse me of being an apologist for paedophilia or male predatory sexual behaviour – or whatever is the latest kernel of anti-male hate or theme-of-the-month. Well, perhaps not here as this is a thoughtful/insightful forum, but just in case, for those in the cheap seats – no, I am not. I do not feel the need, either, to project such insecurities. My interest is in facts.
Why don’t you try to compress what you say in just one paragraph or preferably a sentence? No one wants to read essays.
I never knew you spoke for everyone in that respect, but since you’ve appointed yourself to the role of Content Moderator then my response is: I don’t care. You have the same option as everyone else, and as I have when I am confronted with the ‘essays’ written by others: just ignore it. The website owners also have the option of deleting it. Like everyone else, I’m free to make comment. If you find my comments offensive, that’s your problem.
tldr
Tom Rogers, I didn’t get past your first paragraph, unfortunately. The claim that raping underage girls is not “abuse” defeated me. Good luck with the rest of your argument, whatever it was.
I have made no such claim.
You are free not to read what I write: based on your (non-)response, it would be quite a relief to me if you ignore me altogether.
I wrote it more for my own purposes really. A kind of carthasis, if you like, in a crazy world full of intolerant, concrete-headed people like you who can’t cope with contrary arguments and think that slogans and buzz words are a substitute for thought. Not that I am any kind of thinker myself – but I do like to think for myself and I dislike the oily syncophancy, emotional fakery and intellectual orthodoxy that is at the root of most comment about current affairs.
Tom Rogers is probably an elderly intellectual who is so out of touch with the rest of society that he thinks people have time to read his prolix ramblings. He should learn from me and write more aphoristically and get straight to the point in the first sentence.
Under-aged sex has been condoned since 1985 when the concept of Gillick Competence was promulgated.
My solution would be to forbid extramarital sex.
I may or may not be lots of things. What I am not, unlike you, is someone who deliberately misrepresents other people’s views without bothering to read what they have actually written.
On the strength of this thread, I’m just someone who has written a lengthy opinion, which is something lots of people do on here and is not unique. Essays appear on here all the time. If people “don’t have time to read essays”, then what is this site for? If you don’t like reading essays, I suggest yhou go somewhere else. If you don’t want to read MY essay, then I suggest you ignore me.
If, on the other hand, you don’t like what I have said or find it offensive, then you have a choice. You can either be specific as to what you don’t like so that I have a chance to address your concerns OR you can just ignore me.
I don’t care which you choose, but I will reply to a proper argument.
Does that cover everything? Have I missed anything? Have I made myself clear? I hope so.
The trouble with libertarians is that they love the sound of their own voices and the length of their own witterings.
I’m not a libertarian.
Hello Claire Khaw. Who the fuck are you, precisely?
Here she is Ian:-
http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Claire_Khaw
I’m pretty sure this is the right person that you are looking to find.
As a general Rule, Sean and I do not moderate comments on here. If it was right, as was implied a couple of weeks ago by “world leaders”, that Charlie Hebdo could publish what it liked about, er, stuff and all that, also we allow the same.
I expect Claire will tell you who she is, now.
Libertarians do not tend to question feminism, do they? Feminism undermines marriage as well as causing immigration, paedophilia and dementia.
If you say so. I’ve heard feminism also causes some rather confused (or perhaps well paid?) people to pose in photographs making Nazi salutes while holding rifles. Just going on what I’ve heard.
Tom Rogers makes a valid point, and I’m one of the tiny minority also questioning the narrative on this one. And yes, I read the report too.
The methodology was a clumsy “sampling” style without any proper figures. The “thousands” appears to have been any girl up to 18 who had sex or contact with a swarthy foreigner over the time period; a few lurid examples were then brought forward as representative. This is deeply troubling. IIRC, there was just one “gang rape” (which was no doubt genuine, and is a bad thing) but this transposed in the populist narrative to “gang rapes” plural and by implication rampant; the term rape smeared from forcible sex to any sex with an underage girl, and so on. The report grudgingly noted that many of the purported victims refused to accept that they were victims at all or had been abused, but in typical child salvationist manner this was dismissed as the girls not being in their right minds, being “groomed” and so on.
It is funny for me looking at people on the notional right thoroughly adopting the feminist attitude when it suits, in particular denying any possibility of agency to young women. Thus in the bad old days before, ooh, about twenty years ago, conservatives at least (and indeed everybody) recognised that a girl can be a bit of a slapper. Nowadays, it is verboten to say so. But it is clear that there was a great deal of consensual activity by girls who would have been until recently called “wayward”; girls who were on the council books precisely because of that and out of control of their parents.
A lot of people have picked up on this because they don’t like immigration and this is a proof of how bad it is. I don’t like immigration either, but when I see a narrative put together like this, I raise a sceptical eyebrow. It does not seem to me to be beyond plausibility that at least in some cases, the council did nothing because the girl in question was anybody’s for twenty Bensons; a phenomenon that would have been unremarkable until political correctness obligated us to believe that the female of the species has no agency or responsibility for her own behaviour.
These children should never have been subjected to this kind of horrific paedophilia in the first place. The authorities have no shame as they would blame PC for not doing their jobs when they know they could have stopped this with the law on their side.
The state has proven that they are completely incapable of looking after children and looking out for their wellbeing.
There are plenty of married couples out there who can’t have children biologically and yet because of this, the state believes that these married couples would not be capable of adopting or looking after children in a warm, loving and safe environment.
It’s about time we looked at this and start thinking about the safety and prosperity of the child and get rid of the tick box culture and the political correctness that puts children and young people in a vulnerable and dangerous state.
IanB: There maybe something in what you say but remember that the femmi-skanks behind Spewtree are not on the job as far as the RoP goes. They are clients of the left and skanks who piss their knickers with outrage if a white man looks sideways at a woman have nothing whatsoever to say about clit-cutting, acid throwing charmers of the RoP. Sweden is the classic examples–pussy-whipped white males who seem to need permission to breathe from females but Malmo is the rape capital of Europe thanks to the culturally enriched and stone silence from the one of the world’s nastiest femmi-gangs. Seems to me –without the nasty girlz on the job, talk of exaggeration is itself exaggerated.
I had not really thought about what Mr Webb says in this post – but, on reflection, he does have a point.
One solution to the problem of “busy, driven” people getting into public sector positions, and doing stuff – most of it either bad or unnecessary – would be to have fewer (or no) “Councils”. Or at least not very many, and to not allow them to do very much, if at all. Why on earth, for example, are we always being told that “it’s necessary to Bring Government Closer To The People”? (Usually from the busy, bullying left). I’d have thought that that’s the very last thing anyone would want.
We could then have fewer police, a good objective to head for, since so many “crimes” are intellectually-manufactured by the FabiaNazis. Such as “envirocrime”, “hate-crimes”, “twittercrimes” (seemingly a new category which gets all sorts of people into trouble for no reason) and so on.
The few police really needed could then go after villains instead, such as those who use little girls in “council” little-girl-farms, for whatever they like to use them for, or who burgulate or robberate or stuff like that. Whether or not these users were, or still are, almost all swarthy-looking foreigners, is really neither here nor there. Or they could go after burgulators, robberators, muggerators, foreign (mostly) beggerators, those performing wreckage, sackage and carnage here and elsewhere (perhaps the Army would be of more use to us on this one) and other “social” piss-takors.
Now, DJWebb may also be sort of right that some of the girls involved in the Rotherham stories may have been a bit “light” (I borrow a Czech literal translation from South-Moravian slang here: “light-girl” I was told once meant “young tart” – and a kinder, more “polite social” word for such people, used in polite company, was “kozicka” pronounced “kozeeechka” which means “little baby _female_ goat”). However, that does not excuse the “local authorities” and the local police for in effect tacitly farming those girls out, who they _legally possessed_ the persons of. I thought that was called pimping, which is I believe a rude term for someone who makes money from that sort of thing.
Perhaps they were not directly charging the swarthy-looking foreigners for the girls’ “services”, but it amounts to the same thing really. Perhaps instead of payments to themselves, they agreed to “turn a blind eye”. What I haven’t considered of course is whether any of the girls were “willing participants”, for in some cases that must have been the case for some time if they did it often. Who can now know?
Yes – too much talk of devolution, which empowers local bureaucrats. The only devolution I want – is devolution to full personal control.
It’s as well to point out the double -standards being made, but really, are any of us surprised?
Oh, and I read the “essay” too. Food for thought.
I guess also what I was trying to say above, is to highlight the danger of the following thing:-
People getting into the Public Sector and into politics, who are:-
“Energetic”
“Enthusiastic”
“Outgoing”
“Glib”
AND completely incapable of holding down any sort of useful and productive employment whatsoever.
We should have many, many fewer of these people. Some think that the Universities are to blame. True, at 4,175,649 “unis” at the last count (and counting), we have slightly too many universities, training post-1970 humans to be very “up themselves”, and to also be very “progressive” (for it sounds so good and right, doesn’t it. “Going forward” and all that shit…) Perhaps 20 or 22 universities anyway would do very well for a nation of more than 74 million people (and counting) and all “departments” with titles of /two words or more/ could be shut-down.
But I don’t think it’s that: the universities have since the 1960s been deliberately sabotaged in order to produce army-corps-volumes of such people.
If we had not been driven down the historical road I have shone a torch on just here, then we wouldn’t probably have got lots of swarthy foreign-looking men, doing things which these people’s cultural-baggage orders them to do. then nobody would know where Rotherham was.
For those interested, I think ASDA-Rotherham was the location of the first modern-type ASDA supermarket, and it had “24 checkouts” – a record for the time. I’m talking 1976 or thereabouts. ASDA will know anyway and will corroborate or deny this story. (ASDA stands for “associated dairies”, and is a genetically-Yorkshire-born company.)
For humour, to do with this, I visited ASDA-Musselburgh (it’s near Edinburgh) in the summer of 1976 as the Brand Manager for Beecham-Foods-Canned-Carbonate-Drinks on a “store check”. (Top-Deck, Jokers, Coca-Cola, Fresca, Tab, Lilt. Also Lucozade was in our brand-group.) It was similarly sized, and on entering the store, all you could hear was the roar of coinage changing hands at the seemingly endless row of checkouts. It was like glittery thunder, and invariant in volume, which was interesting to behold.
There is a certain type of feminist who, on principle, believes any claim of rape, however apparently false (see the University of Virgina rape hoax recently). But there is also a certain type of libertarian who disbelieves any claim of rape/sexual abuse of children, on (poorly based) principle.
The most shocking thing about Rotherham was that the Pakistani taxi drivers did not meet the girls outside and furtively groom them into abuse. The report shows that they came right into the children’s homes and selected the children to take away right in front of the care home workers. It was no secret what was going on – and the workers there knew.
What galls me is the state’s instant decision that no charges will be brought against anyone in the state. The police who knew it was happening – are untouchable. So are the councillors. So are the workers in the children’s homes. Just like the police at Hillsborough. Just like the doctors and nurses and bureaucrats of Staffordshire hospital, who killed thousands of their patients. In fact – the same horrible untouchability is playing out with the Chilcot report into Iraq right now (a nonsense report – as I don’t believe in international law, and as long as the Queen authorised military action there is no legal case to answer – but T. Blair has been given the chance to have large parts of the report rewritten, it seems).
As for whether the girls were willing – well that was not exactly my point, and I’m not sure anyone in this comment thread understood my article. My point is that the councillors and the council officials (and policemen) tolerated abuse of the girls because they look down on children who are the product of broken homes as a lower species of life. As for whether the girls were willing – even if legally too young to give consent – well, when you’re talking of large numbers of girls some of them would have been – or, at least at first. But the details of what they were subject to – all-nighters servicing a dozen unknown men in their 50s and 60s – probably for a packet of fags – are simply horrific, and they probably could not have left the venue had they wished to. This was undoubtedly rape.
I don’t think libertarians should seek out false allegations of rape. However, it is uncool in the extreme of libertarians to seek to play down real rape. There is such a thing as rape. To be quite honest, the details of this story fit everything we know about the minority community involved. It doesn’t surprise me in the least.
[quote] “As for whether the girls were willing – well that was not exactly my point, and I’m not sure anyone in this comment thread understood my article. My point is that the councillors and the council officials (and policemen) tolerated abuse of the girls because they look down on children who are the product of broken homes as a lower species of life.”[unquote]
I regard the above as begging the question. You are assuming there was ‘abuse’ (an emotive buzzword that can be made to mean anything you don’t like). Ergo, so your argument goes, they either weren’t willing or their willingness was an irrelevant factor. It’s circular and amounts to arguing from your own opinions rather than facts. It leads inexorably to conclusions that involve blaming easy targets – council officials, care workers, councillors, anonymous police officers and the like – while exculpating the actors themselves. It denies a thorough examination of the culpability of the girls involved, some of whom behaved disgracefully, immorally and irresponsibly, even if some of them were also ‘victims’.
Some of these ‘vulnerable kids’ arranged the abuse and (allegedly) pimped out some of the youngest girls. That’s one of the claims made in the Report. Whether it’s true to any significant extent is another matter. The Report is heavy on allegations and light on evidence – rather like social workers and high street personal injury lawyers who, incidentally, often benefit from this sort of ‘abuse’.
[quote] “As for whether the girls were willing – even if legally too young to give consent – well, when you’re talking of large numbers of girls some of them would have been – or, at least at first. But the details of what they were subject to – all-nighters servicing a dozen unknown men in their 50s and 60s – probably for a packet of fags – are simply horrific, and they probably could not have left the venue had they wished to. This was undoubtedly rape.”[unquote]
How many were subjected to this? Is this representative or typical, or just an extreme example? What are your sources for these ‘facts’?
[quote”…it is uncool in the extreme of libertarians to seek to play down real rape.”[unquote]
I think we have a clue here to some of what this is really about. For the purpose of keeping up appearances and out of fear of social disapproval, men are now being pressured into adopting or acqueiscing in lazy, bromide assumptions that broadly favour a quite militant and unhealthy type of feminism.
It’s “cool” you see. Yeah man!
Improper or inappropriate behaviour is now ‘harassment’, ‘assault’, ‘abuse’. If a woman gets drunk and makes some unwise sexual decisions in consequence, she hasn’t behaved stupidity, she is actually a ‘victim’ of ‘rape’. She didn’t know what she was doing – see?
A kind pseudo-legal terminology has developed to describe ordinary social problems that arise naturally in relationships between people of the opposite sex. Men like to fuck women. What’s new? It seems some people didn’t know this. The ordinary problems of life, like drunk women sleeping with ugly men; young girls sleeping with older men and then regretting it; men being sexually aggressive and not waiting for a written permission slip before pushing themselves on to a women, now each have a made-up legal name, a prison sentence and a compensation limit.
In the past, these things would have been worked out informally:
The drunk woman would have been told by her Mam “not to be so bloody stupid in future” and her Dad would have said: “Let’s hope you don’t get pregnant love, and just wait ’til next time I see that little git!”.
The young girl who sleeps with older men would have got a ‘reputation’, been shunned. Her sister would have called her a ‘slag’ and she would have had to move away and start again – maybe learning her lesson.
The men who are sexually aggressive would have had lots of children, and the men among those children would have had lots of children too.
Now, there are much fewer children. I wonder why?
Rather than accepting that life is unfair and taking responsibility for our own actions – which encourages us to be more sensible and use forethought – we are being encouraged to believe that problems in life happen due to some sort of ‘injustice’ that the state will then correct for us.
Children are an emotive topic, which leads to a lot of nonsense being talked and written by people who want social approval. I also accept that children require special consideration, but I don’t really much care whether my views are ‘cool’ or ‘uncool’ or socially approved or not. We’re not here to give each other fashion tips.
I should add that although feminists have been criticsed for being reluctant to get into the Rotherham issue due to the political correctness surrounding race (they’ve been Twitterising around the nonsense issue of Page 3 girls), there is an additional motivation for feminists to ignore mass child rape by Pakistani taki drivers. That is that feminists support the decline of the traditional family – divorce, alimony, custody battles are all things that have come to prominence under policies urged on by feminists – and so girls in the children’s homes are the “collateral damage” of the feminists. Maybe the feminists don’t like to admit what **they themselves** have done to the girls in children’s homes.
Thank you for your “essay” and you’ll be pleased to know I read more than the first paragraph.
I read the whole thing.
You state: [quote] “But there is also a certain type of libertarian who disbelieves any claim of rape/sexual abuse of children, on (poorly based) principle.”[unquote]
Can you give us an example of this type of libertarian? Is this ‘type’ in fact just one person you’ve met or heard of, or is it a stereo-type, or is it a less solid impression you’ve gained of libertarians over the years? And what are you defining as a ‘libertarian’? Anyone who reads this site, an acolyte of Robert Nozick or just someone who has a vague dislike of the state, or what?
Could you also provide specific authoritative references for the following fact-based claims, ideally from the Report itself (here’s the link: http://www.rotherham.gov.uk/downloads/file/1407/independent_inquiry_cse_in_rotherham), or if it has to be, then from some other reasonable source (i.e. not just somebody’s opinion on a blog).
Not that I doubt any of the following happened, but I want to see the context of the findings, the frequency of these incidents taking place, what is thought to have actually happened (as opposed to a journalistic slant on it) and what evidence (if any) is available to back up the claims.
1. [quote]”The report shows that they came right into the children’s homes and selected the children to take away right in front of the care home workers.”[unquote]
2. [quote]”It was no secret what was going on – and the workers there knew.”[unquote]
3. [quote]”What galls me is the state’s instant decision that no charges will be brought against anyone in the state.”[unquote]
4. [quote]”all-nighters servicing a dozen unknown men in their 50s and 60s – probably for a packet of fags”[unquote]
Here I do accept you have a point about the social poisons that have resulted from policies influenced by feminist schools of thought, though I find the causation is more complex than simply: ‘feminists did it’. They didn’t. These problems have multiple causes.
My impression is that most feminists (I refer now to the more militant ones) have not steered clear of the ‘Rotherham’ issue, but rather used it as an excuse to launch into hysterical rants about ‘mysogyny’, a word I find difficult enough to spell, let alone understand. How anyone can be a ‘woman-hater’ I am not clear. It should not surprise you that my mother was a woman. Without her, I would not be here. For that reason alone, ‘mysogyny’ [there, I’ve spelt it right] makes about as much sense to me as heliophobia. It’s just a way for feminists (both male and female) to browbeat people they don’t like – mainly white men, who are ‘privileged’ for some reason.
You are right, though, that the racial dimension in this case has caused them some discomforture. The first of many schisms ahead for the multi-culturalists.
I am sorry, I will not read through comments here that are many times the length of my original article. As far as libertarians and others who play down rape, I would put Tom Rogers and Ian B in that category. But I will leave the commenters to debate amongst themselves. A two-line comment might have attracted a response from me.
As I have stated above, I am not a libertarian.
As for your disgusting allegation that I am “playing down rape”, it fits in nicely with the rest of the emotive nonsense you’ve spouted on this thread. IUnless you can define what you’re blathering about, I will treat it as just an appeal to the gallery and a sign of intellectual weakness.
More critically, it’s also irrelevant to my question, which I will now return to.
You said:
[quote]”But there is also a certain type of libertarian who disbelieves any claim of rape/sexual abuse of children, on (poorly based) principle.”[unquote]
Just to remind you – I’m asking you to give us examples of this type of libertarian.
I repeat the question here. Can you provide examples? There aren’t any on this thread. Neither I nnor Ian B have made such an argument. So unless you want to admit that your arguments are sloppy and you were wrong to make that claim, then I think you need to tell us who these libertarians are.
I have also asked you to substantiate your fact-based claims. Again, see my post above. Perhaps you would be so good as to do that, if only to demonstrate that you are basing your views on the Report and are thus capable of reading something longer than a single paragraph.
As was pointed out elsewhere on the Internet cases are not about believing or disbelieving people–they are about believing (or otherwise) evidence. I have no trouble disbelieving the Yewtree claims because the “evidence” is non-existent or not real evidence at all. Rotherham –as I pointed out –does not have, on the job, the chief spreaders of deceit and disinformation in matters of supposed male infamy–the femmi-commisar establishment. I am therefore more inclined to give credence to the Rotherham allegations/evidence. It is something the left does NOT want and therefore has much less chance of being a put-up job.
Alexis Jay has practised in social work professionally and is almost, you might say, the proto-typical Establishment feminist commissar. It would be natural for her to produce a Report, like this one, that is heavy on allegations and light on evidence, that points the finger at men (albeit a specific ethnic group) and paints the female as eternal victim. That is the doctrinal template used by the authorities now. ‘Rotherham’ is just one extreme example of this tendency.
Regarding the nature of the allegations and evidence, my understanding from reading the Report is that it is almost-all the say-so of the victims themselves, and therefore little different from Yewtree et al. We are essentially being asked to believe the word of women who are basing their allegations on recollections of incidents that they regret and that are embarrssing to them, and that took place years ago when they were young and irresponsible. We are also being asked to accept the interpretation of these incidents by public sector workers who are applying the professional ideology of interventionist policing and social work, including the lrelevant pseudo-legal terminology and buzz phrases.
It is entirely possible that the Jay Report is fraudulent and the result of professional interventionist practices spun out of control. We have seen it before and it would be nothing new. The Report itself is essentially a collection of social work buzzwords and phrases strung together and interleaved with summaries of allegations, most of which appear to be uncorroborated. The figure of “at least 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone” is pure guesswork and based on flawed statistical methods.
When the Report was issued, feminists reacted by adopting the line that this is further evidence of male mysogyny. It has been easy for the media to conceal or ignore the racial and ethnic dimension of the problem and instead attribute the pathologies to men generally.
I would just like to say the following on this. This predatory behaviour by Pakistani males was happening much wider afield than children’s homes.
In fact, it became a bit infuriating how it was being turned into a ‘care home’ (focus on Barnardos for example) issue and giving the impression therefore that those in more fortunate circumstances were not really at risk.
This is not to detract from the article, but that I remember quite well the cases which featured working class and middle class families whose daughters had become victims to this quite purposeful situation.
This includes such desperation from the parents that they resorted to having to try and lock their own children in their rooms – although some managed to escape to their abusers through windows, such was the power they had over them.
Just to make it clear. Many, if not most of these girls were being targeted specifically for their ethnicity.
They were being taken advantage of in terms of exploiting their teenage rebellion and their ‘growing up’ issues, for their low self esteem – and at an underlying level (in terms of broken homes and wider issues) for their being victim of a debasement of society that in my view has been caused by decades of liberalism, hedonism and brainwashing.
In my own opinion they are also victims of multiculturalism and race-mixing propaganda, but that is another matter. They have repeatedly been given the impression that this is okay, that it is something to be encouraged, that it should be normalised, that people should not be judged, that ‘we are all the same’ and that they should not resist it…. whereas in the past it just simply would not have been entertained and would have caused a bit of an uproar.
Yet here is the thing with trying to wriggle out of ‘abuse’ via semantics. If it is understood that the aforementioned things were part of this picture, then one should also know that these gangs were taking advantage of these girls by playing on their insecurities, by introducing them to drink and drugs, later hard drugs, for which in some cases they had become addicted to.
The free gifts – the trainers, the bracelets, the ‘loving boyfriend’ theme drifted from ‘having a good time’ driving around and having a laugh in a more ‘adult’ way than their classmates, to being sexually active and addicted to the drink and drugs culture – without any means to be paying for them other than continuing to mix with these people and think ‘nothing of’ the gradual worsening of the situation, because for them it was said to be ‘normal’.
Contrary to some beliefs being expressed, some of them did not really have the freedom of choice to leave. They were being blackmailed. This was both in terms of these gangs “telling the girls parents” what she had been up to and what a “dirty little ‘paki-shagging’ slag” she is (in every detail) – or in other cases having the threat of the family home being fire-bombed.
According to reports (and investigative TV documentaries from numerous channels) this all got to the point where they were, in some cases, being driven around the country, going missing for days, being forced to have sex with up to 30 to 40 men a night – being branded with hot irons and being sexually abused with baseball bats and other objects, when not being violently struck.
In my mind, that constitutes abuse. Abuse borne from vulnerability. It would be a pretty sick individual who would not deem it as abusive or exploitative. For reasons already stated in the comments, there are reasons for the exploitative behaviour – and furthermore, I suspect, a sense of the spills of colonisation/conquering and rubbing our faces in it as we are rendered pretty powerless to stop it happening.
The girls may not all have been virtuous and perfectly prim and proper, but this is not any kind of argument to make if the idea is to ‘explain away’ what has been going on.
People are bound to have different perspectives, but to me, the girls were vulnerable, they were exploited, they were abused both sexually, mentally and physically.
Whilst at the time some of them would defend their exploiters out of a sick sense of ‘friendship’ (or through fear of retribution), others have come out in a decades time and spoke out about how they were so naive and had not realised they were being groomed.
It is not correct for liberals in society to explain away the Muslim aspect of this, nor the racial aspect, for it is part of the mixture.
Yet, nor can it all be blamed on Muslims/Pakistanis. This is because a more fundamental set of things has led us here – multi-racialism, multiculturalism, liberalism, hedonism, drug cultures, indoctrination of race-mixing and ‘not being prejudice’ about who you have sex with, the destruction of really close knit communities and families, where everybody lives in relative isolation and has no idea what is taking place on their own streets, etc.
If none of this kind of thing had happened, the girls would not have been in a position to be exploited, abused, no matter what their opinions of it may have been when it started. The situations could just never have arose.
But they have arose, they are being taken advantage of and abused, they are victims of ‘progressive modernism’, they are the ‘easy meat’ for racial and cultural predators and those who sought to top up their existing drug running enterprises with a more profitable side-line on pimping out our next generation of women, with a ‘good time’ for themselves on tap.
So to sum up what you are saying, Concerned Briton:
1. The girls chose to be ‘abused’, going with their ‘abusers’ and ‘exploiters’ willingly. By your own admission, this is what happened – you just put your own slant on it.
2. Even though the girls made their own Fate, they should still be exempted from responsibility. In your own words:
[quote] “Whilst at the time some of them would defend their exploiters out of a sick sense of ‘friendship’ (or through fear of retribution), others have come out in a decades time and spoke out about how they were so naive and had not realised they were being groomed. [unquote].
You use this term ‘grooming’, which is a social work buzzword. What does it mean, really? Does the word have any rigour at all? If I go out and chat up an attractive lady this evening, am I grooming her? If, as you concede, these girls willingly went along with what was happening, were they being groomed or were they just making bad decisions that they now, with hindsight, deeply regret?
3. All who were involved (both the girls and the men) had freedom of choice to cease taking part, but you say many of the girls gave in to blackmail or threats – rather than simply saying ‘No’ and taking the consequences.
4. Some of them suffered actual abuse – beatings, rape – others were trafficked to different towns. These incidents are referred to in the Report, based on the accounts given by the girls themselves. I agree that if this occurred then it is disgusting and the perpetrators should be prosecuted and punished, if that has not happened already.
5. Various ‘isms’ caused it (liberalism, hedonism, multiculturalism, etc.) rather than the girls themselves (and the men) making bad or criminal choices. The usual bromide analysis – Cultural Marxists, feminists, lefties, and so on….
6. Anyone who ascribes some responsibility to the girls and their evident lack of morals (in other words, anybody who disagrees with you) is trying to “explain away” what happened and is a “pretty sick individual”.
7. The girls were “vulnerable”. You don’t tell us what this means. Are all girls vulnerable, by definition? Or is it just some? If only some, then what is it that makes them vulnerable? And how does this ‘vulnerability’ exempt these girls from the normal standards of blame and responsibility? Should we exempt murderers from punishment when are “vulnerable” under your definition (whatever it is)? Or should we demand that everyone takes responsibility for their own actions (with some obvious exceptions: i.e. very young children, mentally-ill, etc.)? Is it possible that the girls weren’t so much ‘vulnerable’ as ‘available’ for a number of reasons, not least that they made themselves available?
8. You make the point that race is a factor. I disagree. Race is not a factor. It is THE fundamental issue and probably the major cause of what is going on in society (along with the dysfunctional and anarchic social fabric of capitalism). Can you not see your own error here? Due to your racial views, you are trying to “explain away” the girls’ own culpability in what happened. This is what I meant earlier when I said that the far-Right cannot face up to plain facts. Better to put it down to racial conquest than accept that this racial replacement is happening with the consent of whites. It’s what most white people want. It’s not white genocide. It’s white suicide. That is the real problem. That is what is being concealed with this nutty hysteria. The Muslims are the footsoldiers of racial replacement – and easy scapegoats. People should try and analyse what is going on properly (objectively), rather than trying to blame various ideological ghosts which serve a convenient escapist logic but don’t really explain things.
Do you have some sort of incomprehension of the English language as it is commonly used, or is the game of semantics your personal thing? – The always questioning of terms, or words, what deeper context those precise words may or may not say?
If you’re going to ask everybody what every word is that they mean, specifically, and to provide deep answers for the choices of their words because it does not quite suit yourself, then we all could be here for a very, very long time, nitpicking over what precisely something does or does not cover, or does or does not imply.
You talk of me ‘slanting’ the discussion, yet you yourself are slanting what I had to say. I admitted nothing of the sort (The girls chose to be ‘abused’, going with their ‘abusers’ and ‘exploiters’ willingly).
Furthermore, you have no idea, it seems, as to how these people operate or what it was all actually about if you can try and equate it to some chat up artist in a pub or somebody approaching a woman in a park.
Did these men come up to these young teenagers and say “hey, I am going to mentally manipulate you into sexual slavery and get you high on drugs and maybe throw in a bit of battery and threat to the lives or your family”… and the girls said “Hey! that sound great to me! Sure!” – don’t be ridiculous.
They did not agree “willingly” to what ultimately happened to them.
Maybe you expect girls of 12 and 13 to be worldly wise and capable of handling such manipulative situations and thus take full “self responsibility” {and blame} for it. I do not. Maybe I am just not as callous as yourself, who knows.
I expect mistakes to be made, I recognise that these girls and wider society are not perfect and in some cases would have no problem with a bit of a tangle with some of these Asians and drug taking, but you appear to be suggesting that the real perpetrators of these activities, who set out with a much darker intent for the long haul, are less to blame than the apparently ‘promiscuous’ young teenagers that they took advantage of.
Of course people, particularly grown ups, have to have self responsibility – but I say again that these young girls were not exactly offered what ultimately happened to them as “a lifestyle choice” and said “yes please!”.
You dance around the phrase of “grooming”. It is indeed infuriatingly bandied about, but it is a word that does have a contextual a meaning. One meaning by dictionary definition is “to prepare for a specific purpose”.
The Asian males were setting out, purposefully, to “prepare” these girls for what ultimately followed. You may not like it, but I do not think it is therefore unreasonable for a common man or for common verbiage to apply the word ‘grooming’ to what has happened to these girls.
Again, this was partly done via deception at the start, which included flattering and playing into the negative aspects of modern cultures that I described earlier. That some of these girls were not exactly backward at coming forward, that they were not nuns (or otherwise the bastions of innocence) is neither here nor there.
They may well have made bad choices, been prepared to sleep around or “give it away” (like many other young teenagers experimenting and trying to grow up), but you seem to be suggesting that because of this, they deserved the specific kind of life that they were pulled into by these people. They didn’t.
As for them being vulnerable, it should not be that hard to understand the factors I had already described. Volatile teenage years, broken homes, lack of moral guidance in society and the wider establishment, rebellion against the parents, lack of self esteem, peer pressure to do this or that.
In my estimation all these factors, particularly when combined, make a young teenager vulnerable to take risks, have their heads turned, to be played on, to be exploited. To me, they are likely to be vulnerabilities that will affect decision-making. To you, they clearly aren’t.
The main problem with your own thesis on this is that you refuse to acknowledge the milieu of this situation.
You sneeringly sweep aside the “isms” and the commentary upon the decline of moral standards which have helped create the conditions for this to happen, and then try and blame these girls for their lack of morality and character!
What on Earth do you expect to happen in such a society? Do you think people are just individual bubbles who are not affected by the national/societal/political culture for the last 60 years or more?
You say it is what “most people want” – but you seem to operate in a vacuum that is devoid of seeing just as to how they might have been shaped to “want” these things, if indeed they do “want it”, as you suggest.
You go on to suggest it is ‘white suicide’. I will finally just offer a little sideways opinion on that.
Let us say that a person is seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist, or even a hypnotist and that person has malicious intent against an individual. They may have found themselves there through character faults that are inherent in them, or have been taught to believe that there is something wrong with them and that they need help.
The psychologist / psychiatrist / hypnotist works with these individuals for decades, undergoing weekly sessions.
Little by little, not all at once, they manipulate these individuals to believe they are responsible for the sins of the world, that they have much to do to make things right, that they have to unlearn everything about their old lives and move ahead with a new programme, a new way of being.
They are told, drip by drip, that they are worthless, useless, nondescript, of no real value, culture-less, actually quite evil, unfairly privileged, full of hate and prejudice and bigotry and only after these things are cured will they start to feel better about themselves. Again, it is not so explicit – nor all at once. It is never enough to walk out or quit the sessions.
Would it really be any surprise of people, after decades of such drip feeding, start to work against their own interests? Would it really be any surprise if – “by their own accord” {according to you} – they start to do things they would not ordinarily do if they were not being poisoned in this way?
If a depressed person is told endlessly that they are useless, worthless, that they should not carry on – or if a person is hypnotised to take their own life, to shoot themselves – who is to blame? You may say it is the person who killed themselves. I am not as black and white as that. I think that the person doing the manipulating, or the hypnotist, has some significant role in their demise.
You do not seem to take wider aspects like this into consideration for the choices of young teenagers today. I do, whether it is deemed to be “bromide” or not.
Language matters to thoughtful people. Language is powerful and can make us the mental slaves of others. I don’t believe ‘Reports’ just because they are written by someone important or because the conclusions fits with whatever fashions or prejudices govern the moment – in this case, a narcissistic need to be seen to be concerned for kiddies and “vulnerable” people.
I’ve read all your reply, but it doesn’t require a very lengthy response from me. My points have been made and are clear to anyone who is interested. You fail to address my central argument, which is that the girls willingly took part in the activity. This is something you can’t get away from. It’s something even you tacitly admit. You might not have consciously admitted it or come out and said it explicitly, but anyone reading your original post and looking at what you actually say will come away with the conclusion that the girls willingly entered into these relations.
You also present an extreme caricature of my perspective. I am not ignoring the context within which these incidents occurred. I referred specifically to this in my first post. I don’t deny there was real abuse. I don’t deny that sometimes girls are vulnerable. I’ve made all this plain in my posts. What I demand is a society in which people accept responsibility for their own actions. That is not what we have at the moment. That might give you a clue as to why European (white) civilisation is in trouble. Alexis Jay is a feminist hysteric and you have got yourself caught up in the hysteria.
The slant you put on things is designed to make people think that these girls are always victims and nothing else. It’s misleading and deceitful when in fact most of them willingly took part. If a girl goes along in sexual activity willingly, then whatever else may have occurred, I believe I have the right, at the very least, to state that fact plainly and to express scepticism about any claims she makes years later that attempt to gloss over her own culpability in actions she now regrets.
As for the white genocide/white suicide thing, I don’t see the relevance of your analogy. It’s another example of you projecting and wanting to blame a third party. If people act against their own racial (genetic) interests – whether it’s naive young white girls sleeping with Pakistani Muslim men and then crying ‘abuse’ afterwards or millions of people voting for anti-white political parties or white liberal feminist men and women attacking the family – that is racial suicide. Either an organism has the will to survive or it does not. The decline of the White Race and European civilisation is due to the actions and inactions of the White Race, the decisions and indecisions of white people. Muslims are handy scapegoats, though sometimes not helping their own cause.
Of course language matters, but to pick everybody up on their nuances of it is tiresome when it should be obvious as to what is generally meant by common usage of those words, and nor should it be unexpected that some of the ‘buzz words’ around such issues creep into general discussion of it – for that is of course the purpose of their design and usage.
“Grooming” is often being used as a euphemism, but as can be seen in any dictionary, it does have a meaning that can be properly put in context within the scenario we are discussing. For I am not discussing relationships gone bad, abusive relationships, race-mixing in general, or such else that people may regret 10 years down the line.
I am specifically talking about the violent, abusive, manipulative, purposeful, planned, orchestrated, sexual slavery and grotesque abuse of girls. I cannot comprehend how anybody, no matter their moral character, would want to go along with that and say ‘Yes please!’.
This is what you appeared to be doing, saying that (all along the way of their manipulation) they chose it and therefore deserved what it ultimately led to. You therefore further imply that I am suggesting they ended up there willingly. I am not saying that at all, and I am ‘admitting’ nothing of the sort.
That is just your own caricature interpretation of what I said, because you refuse to take on board the concept that in some cases they were cajoled, encouraged, manipulated, taken advantage of, deceived, threatened or otherwise led in a particular direction via a taking advantage of both vulnerabilities the wider milieu that can be found in our societies today.
I don’t believe all reports either, and neither did I state anywhere that I was backing up a specific person or a specific report. As for the media and the establishment, I don’t think it can be denied that they have historically tried to minimise the disproportionate impact and nature of Pakistani Muslim men involved.
I do not know what it says in the one report you mention, but some of the others I have seen were at real pains to remove any “fashions or prejudices” that could be stoked up on the discovery of such involvement (and the racial dynamics of it).
As is plainly clear in my reply, I am not absolving the actions of many teenagers today as being part of why this kind of thing can happen in the first place. I recognise and admit that things are not conducive to our betterment.
My difference to you is perhaps that I do not place the blame entirely upon white people for acting like they have been trained to act, or think like they have been trained to think, or to be victims of situations that they have had imposed upon them in prior generations, which have all amalgamated into a culture that can only have disastrous effects for the future of whites.
You claim I fail to take on your central argument, that these girls did it to themselves and that they are to blame because they chose what happened to them. On the contrary, I took on this argument specifically within my reply. That you do not choose to accept it or acknowledge it is not really something I am in control of.
As I stated earlier, you seem to keep stumbling over the issue of the milieu that this has occurred in.
As such, you again seek to reinforce the belief that people ought to have self responsibility, moral character, perhaps some racial awareness etc, whilst ignoring all the elements of propaganda, societal shaping, demographic/biological warfare, attacks upon family units, morality, education and so on within which this scenario is even happening!
This is where my analogy comes in, in case you had missed the point of it.
I think you have a point in that an organism either finds the will to survive or it doesn’t, but all I am saying is that if that organism is placed in a situation where psychologically, physically, culturally, educationally they have been trained to do the reverse of survive, it should not be that much of a shock in the meantime if they are acting in ways that are harmful and not even aware that they are being played, or that they are even fighting for survival as an organism.
To try and take this out of the equation when it comes to the various aspects of the decline of White civilisation, the choices people are “willingly” making, is a bit nonsensical to me.
This is where the psychologist/hypnotist analogy comes in, whether flawed or not, that if somebody is under hypnosis, then given a gun and told to shoot themselves in the head with it – did the person do it to themselves, or was it, in some part, the fault of the hypnotist for providing the loaded gun and creating the conditions for them to do it?
Where does their organism based “will to survive” come in, when they are conditioned in this way, being altered both psychologically and ultimately, over time, physically in the brain (like an addict having their brains restructured)?
You may say it is their own fault for being so manipulated over the last several generations – and that people today are *not* products of this milieu that has built up before them, that they ought to be ‘right thinking’ and rejecting of it all from the start (due to a biological racial awareness of survival, irrespective of what pervades society and a general “adjusted” brain circuitry), to be “self responsible” within this whole mess – but I do not brush it all off so easy.
I agree with you that it can only be up to white people to make a future for themselves….or not. Personally, I think the conditions for this to happen have been made near on impossible.
It really would have to be as basic as organisms, Darwinism, acting on a mission for growth and expansion of their number, like any healthy organism.
At the moment, I just don’t see that being likely, particularly when it has been poisoned so much that it self harms and takes pride in self harming. You solely ascribe that to the organism itself, whereas I do accept that argument to some degree – but refuse to discount the outside influences upon it.
Mother nature is indeed cruel and does not look after the weak. I can only hope that enough people continue to realise what is ultimately at stake and decide to take incremental steps to securing a future for their own kind.
You have constructively conceded that the girls were willing. You are just using social work language to explain in from a perspective of victimisation. But OK, you want to deny it. So let’s not go back-and-forth about that. Instead, I would like to reduce the matter to its essentials.
Did the girls go along willingly or not? Yes or no? Let’s get to the nub of this and have a straight answer.
If your answer is ‘No’, then point me in the Report to where it explains how the girls were kidnapped (i.e. taken unwillingly), which is the only logical alternative. Page number please.
Talk of them being cajoled, persuaded, ‘groomed’, ‘theatened’, blackmailed, etc. won’t do. In all such cases, you are conceding that the girls went along willingly. It’s then just a matter of deciding whether they consented to what followed and whether their account of what happened can be relied on. If you maintain they are telling the truth and didn’t consent, then you need to explain why most of them willingly went back for more – by their admission.
When the situation first went mainstream, the females’ social status was the first thing the police’s spokesman mentioned – like some kind of perverse ex post facto justification for the establishment’s inaction.
Unfortunately, we automatically (and subconsciously) put people into categories; applying different rules, standards and sanctions for each group (the application of UK law has become so subjective). To add insult to injury, many humanists and politicos now see class as an ‘abstraction’; warranting no serious attention or debate… So I see no political or economic solution for social injustice; the way forward being a better understanding of psychology, social biology and the pursuit of self-knowledge (as well as universal standards and personal autonomy).
On the plus side, a low status female can trade her eggs at any time for a prolonged period of state benefits (providing she has a good set of working ovaries), and there are also quotas, education/training and support networks for which there is no serious male equivalent. For the bottom rung of the ladder is still the exclusive domain of the male.
A policeman in Rotherham has been accused on raping underage children. Shall we have a sweepstake on the ethnic affiliation of this policeman? Any prizes for guessing?
The plot thickens…
The policeman accused of involvement in the scandal in Rotherham was PC Hassan Ali, who died today. He was on foot when he was hit by a car on 28 January. Maybe the powers that be didn’t want him mouthing off at a trial and accusing higher-ups? However, reading the Telegraph today, the details are that a 17-year-old victim of sexual exploitation was invited out by this PC – and 17 years old does not fit my definition of a child.
While I do believe that multiculturalism and contempt for children in children’s home has allowed exploitation, I also agree that the whole thing is out of control – and we confusing many things, including the “exploitation” of a 17-year-old, which is not the same thing as exploiting an underage child at all.
An even more serious thing would come to light if it transpired that those behind the death of David Kelly also knocked Hassan Ali down…