Saturday 10 December 2011

Pedantry about Paedoing

This is just going to be one of them ones where I pick holes in some things I have seen that day a.k.a. ‘a hangover one’.

So don’t let the fact that I am having a go at the people persecuting a paedophile make you think that this is pro-paedophile. I know I haven’t joined any ‘Paedophiles are rubbish’ Facebook groups or smashed down the door of someone The News of The World told me to but I assure you, I am anti-paedophile.

So this isn’t exactly the story as I read it – I read it, TOPICALLY, in November 26th’s [The?? Daily??] Mirror. I don’t sit in my flat waiting for a newspaper to be two weeks old¹. So the version I read had a headline taken from the quote about alcoholics and paedophiles being alike. No – that’s not what it said. Kind of did say that. It was the headline – that I can’t accurately remember – that caught my attention and annoyed me a bit. As all I have is this quote I will use it. It’s from the Director of an anti-paedophile charity,

“To use one analogy, you wouldn’t put an alcoholic into a bar unsupervised”

For people not clicking on the link, a quick summary: Gary Glitter was given a passport (he had his taken off him because he keeps going to countries where child sex is less frowned upon when people pay). People were complaining that he shouldn’t be given a passport as it allowed him to go and be a child-sexer abroad [hey, isn’t it better he sexes foreign kids? At least if he’s doing it over in over countries good, honest British kids are safe right?²]. Right, and this guy is explaining that Glitter³ can’t help himself so don’t let him go there (by denying him a passport). And he is saying him going there is like putting an alky in a pub. We all on the same page now?

So my issues:

  • Being an alcoholic isn’t illegal.
  • Bottles of whisky creamed by a booze junkie are not being physically and psychologically assaulted by said booze junkies.
  • Drinking alcohol isn’t illegal in a pub – be you an alky or a non-alky (non-drinker/social drinker/a-bit-of-a-problem-but-not-dependent)
  • An alcoholic only damages themself – unless they’re a fighter as well as a drinker. Or a bully/has a mouthy wife who doesn’t know when to leave it.
And, yeah, I get how similes work. I know there only has to be things that are alike/comparable between two things rather than exact similarity. But still..do we need a simile here? I think letting a paedophile travel to countries where it is easy to have sex with children is something we can see as bad. Is the lack of self-control/need an alcoholic displays for a drink something we need to apply to a paedophile? Whether or not what they do is an act of uncontrollable desire for something they know or not is (a) not really the point – an adult having sex with a child is an adult having sex with a child, and (b) it’s a bit mean on alcoholics to rope them in with this crowd.

¹This, to a degree, is a lie. I do sit in my flat with various parts of newspapers [generally Saturday Guardians or Observers, fact fans] getting two weeks – sometimes more – out of date because I am both lazy and a hoarder. And it takes me ages to get around to reading parts of papers I want to read.

²Yeah, just in case someone doesn’t get that I am joking about this doesn’t deserve an explanation, but here you go: I am not being serious – I am mocking small-minded torch wielding flash-mob paedophile hangers.

³He really has become the face of paedophilia hasn’t he? Name me another active paedophile…you cant. All we have are a couple of people who ‘did some research’ a few years ago. People rarely mention Pete Townshend any more – not in child sex circles anyway. And Langham is never in the papers. Glitter has it sown up. Yeah, he was blown out of the water by Michael Jackson – but his untimely death means Glitz is well and truly the leader of the gang again.

More pedantry – no paedoing

I’ll keep this one short(er). For whatever reason I’ve been watching the videos of the people giving evidence at the Leveson Inquiry. I was watching the video of Steve Coogan’s testimony and Lord Justice Leveson gave Steve a bit of advice (what that advice is isn’t really necessary to relay to you, but it’s certainly nothing that needed saying), which he prefaces by saying:

“You’ve heard me say it before today and I’m going to say it to you because it’s not a general comment; it’s a specific comment to everybody and refers to what they’ve had to say.”

How is a specific comment TO EVERYBODY not a general comment? It’s like saying ‘I’m not speaking specifically to you but what I have to say applies to you and you alone’. It is – that’s what it’s like and if you disagree with me you are a stupid idiot. Are you a stupid idiot? Is that what you’re saying? Ok then disagree with me – you stupid idiot.

Siri Seems To Be The Hardest Word

So I asked Siri how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck would – and anyone who says I go mental when my girlfriend is out of town is just speculating idly.

It knows too much..

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s