India Knight. To be shocked by the lack of self awareness.

[Tacono1]

I feel sad writing this as I have enjoyed her writing at times. I have been quite disturbed by recent developments but do still read The Times as I do still value their overall output ( their ongoing campaign on behalf of those impacted by the cladding scandal is excellent )so do still scan her articles. Today was a discussion of veganism etc. which did make some interesting points but right in the middle was the following statement
‘ I don’t much believe in hypocrisy, which is often the stupid person’s way of oversimplifying complicated and nuanced human choices’
The fact that it was written, then the fact that it wasn’t picked up by editors is astounding.
I think her position is untenable.

Didn’t his lawyer use a version of ‘the love of a good woman’ as part of his defense mitigation too? 🤢

@TomatoCultivator

I think educating dc privately even if you wish private education to be abolished is extremely hypocritical. For those who disagree, do you think protesting about climate change then flying is hypocritical?

I think arguments are more nuanced than that.

So protesting about climate change but flying to a conference that could have a massive worldwide impact on climate change all over the world - lazy and reductive to cry hypocrite. Or flying to visit a dying relative while protesting against climate change - lazy and reductive to cry hypocrite.

@Anaiis - it was not 'at the lower end'. It was images of child abuse of the most serious and depraved type.

This would have been reported even if he wasn't a disgraced MP who had assaulted people in the HoC.

Her daughter used to live with them. Now she doesn't.

@Anaiis
I don’t think your figures are correct. If they are can you provide a link. I think you are referring to estimates of people who have viewed images.
The police are overwhelmed and they are not speaking to or charging 1 in a 100 men.
I do think it’s important not to normalise these actions. Whatever the figures, it’s horrific.

Partner seems to have done more than “look” at child sexual abuse.

From Wikipedia:

Convicted of child sex offence
On 6 November 2018, Joyce was arrested and charged with making an indecent photograph of a child. He was given unconditional bail.[51]

On 7 July 2020, Joyce pleaded guilty at Ipswich Crown Court to making a Category-A indecent film of a child said to be 12 months old, between 7 August 2013 and 6 November 2018. Joyce has been ordered to sign the sex offenders register with the offence crossing the custody threshold. The Judge at the trial told Joyce that due to the seriousness of the crime he was facing a custodial sentence.[52]

On 7 August 2020 he was sentenced to eight months in prison, suspended for two years, and also ordered to perform 150 hours of community service.[53]

People are actually trying to argue that her daughter would have been allowed to live with her and her loathsome partner?
Not a chance social services would be happy with that.

I agree it is too easy to make the accusation of hypocrisy because people act in a different way to an over all belief or strategy. If you do it all the time it loses its value as a negative characteristic.
But whilst I also agree about a partner not responsible for behaviour of the other, the case of IK is different.
Her relationship with him and the home they share was used as a mitigating factor in keeping him out of prison. That is a different matter entirely.
Look up her first tweet after his conviction. Absolute no recognition of the child abuse victims central to the case, but a self serving tweet minimizing everything.

This is a partner minimizing the offence, providing mitigation and chosing her convicted partner over her daughter and now trying to set an agenda towards turning critism back on those that call her out.

@SpindleWhorl

That doesn't even make sense.

No it doesn’t. It’s the philosophical equivalent of declaring you don’t believe in gravity.

Okay but you’re still subject to it, love.

Eric Joyce: Ex-Labour MP sentenced for child sex offence www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-53694012

Joyce has to stay on the SOR for 10 years.

He didn't accidentally stumble across a video of an underage child.

@ClareBlue

I agree it is too easy to make the accusation of hypocrisy because people act in a different way to an over all belief or strategy. If you do it all the time it loses its value as a negative characteristic. But whilst I also agree about a partner not responsible for behaviour of the other, the case of IK is different. Her relationship with him and the home they share was used as a mitigating factor in keeping him out of prison. That is a different matter entirely. Look up her first tweet after his conviction. Absolute no recognition of the child abuse victims central to the case, but a self serving tweet minimizing everything.

This is a partner minimizing the offence, providing mitigation and chosing her convicted partner over her daughter and now trying to set an agenda towards turning critism back on those that call her out.

I agree with all of your points. That was part of my unease at reading her words. It is hard not to read them in a wider context and hard to believe that the point being made is not intentional. She is setting the agenda.

[quote Clymene]@Anaiis - it was not 'at the lower end'. It was images of child abuse of the most serious and depraved type.

This would have been reported even if he wasn't a disgraced MP who had assaulted people in the HoC.

Her daughter used to live with them. Now she doesn't. [/quote]
I'm aware of the grading of the offence.

But in general terms, the sentence he got was at the lower end. If he'd been in a position of responsibility to children (a youth leader, school teacher etc) that would have made it more serious. Likewise if there had been a greater number of images, or any element of contact or attempted contact - which again would be viewed more seriously and probably result in a custodial.

The stat was provided I think by one of the police forces a couple of years ago, I don't have the link. It was given as a reason for scaling down their response to such offences from prosecution to warning - because they didn't have the resources to fully investigate and prosecute every person they were alerted to by CEOP etc.

The point is that there are a lot of women living with someone who's committed an offence like this, I'm generally quite ambivalent to IK but the constant berating of her over her husband's conviction is unpleasant. I didn't see any of this pile on when he got convicted for beating someone up. Or is it ok to stay with a violent man but not one with a sexual offences conviction?

He was convicted of making Class A film of a 1 year old.

That’s standard legalese for “downloading” in child abuse image cases. He is one of the perverted who creates the market, as the judge in his case observed.

@donquixotedelamancha

She might not be your favourite journo but it was her DH who looked at porn not her.

He was convicted of making Class A film of a 1 year old.

"Images classed in this category depict gross assault, sadism or bestiality – obscene images involving penetrative sexual activity. This category also extends to all images that depict a child subjected to pain."

www.lawtonslaw.co.uk/resources/how-indecent-images-are-graded-in-criminal-courts/

I think it's perfectly reasonable to criticise someone with kids who stays with a guy like that.

Omg, it's worse than I thought. Good grief. What is wrong with him obviously but what is wrong with her??????

I listened to her awful book about ageing on audible before i knew who she was and I think she is very scared of being alone. I'm single and 51 and one of the suggestions she made to older single women was that they move in together. I was thinking whaaaaat, get like, a flat mate, at 50? No thank you. I think she cannot be alone.

@DulseSeaweed

Can't stand the woman or anything she writes now. I'm not sure I follow the point she's attempting to make there but am unsurprised she continues merrily publishing drivel whilst her child lives elsewhere so she can continue a relationship with a paedophile.

@DulseSeaweed how do you know that, about her daughter living elsewhere?

@TheoMeo

From wiki ' In May 2021, German police said that they had dismantled one of the world's biggest child pornography networks on the dark web, with over 400,000 registered users' That's just one.

I had to Google the woman. But how anyone could stay with these men is beyond me. Especially when it involves walking away from your child,

@MrsKeats

People are actually trying to argue that her daughter would have been allowed to live with her and her loathsome partner? Not a chance social services would be happy with that.

I'm afraid you're quite wrong. Unless there were aggravated elements to the offence, suggestion of escalation to contact etc then social services would allow a child to remain in the home. A risk assessment would be carried out, but no further action taken. I'm aware of many such cases where social services have no ongoing involvement.

The differentiating factor here may well have been that they are both in the public eye, and the conviction was publicised in social media (most are not now, due to numbers).

@TheoMeo

This is pretty spiteful stuff imv. She might not be your favourite journo but it was her DH who looked at porn not her. But it seems, as always, the wife has to have her life destroyed before 'the holier than thou' are happy. I'm pretty sure millions of British men have looked at child porn - but seems their wives, mothers, any other female who knows them are as evil, misogyny again.

Choosing to stay with a paedophile and your child having to leave because of it is appalling and she should be blamed for that. As should anyone who chooses to stay with such a person.

That’s not misogyny

FFS @donquixotedelamancha ask for your misleading post to be taken down. You’ll get the thread pulled.

@Labradooodle they were the worst grading of images, if that’s what you mean and he’s a child sex offender who wouldn’t be allowed anywhere near my kids, BUT for some reason donquixote is being misleading about the exact nature of the offending (maybe she is IK and wants the thread gone?)

@Anaiis - damn right that I think watching films of babies and small children being raped is worse than throwing a drunken punch at another adult. Most sane people would.

Funny, you were saying that white middle class men frequently got away with stuff that other blokes didn't on one of the many other threads where you were defending sex offenders. Doesn't that mean he's got a lighter sentence here or does that argument not fit this particular case?

@TheoMeo

by staying with him she's tacitly condoning his crimes You say. I doubt she sees it that way. And her DD - who knows what happened there - do you know her and her ex personally - or her DD.

I've no truck with child porn but it wasn't IK who had anything to do with it. LIke I suggested do you think every mother, sister, wife of a porn viewing man should have their lives destroyed?

And I think you mean child abuse

Staying with him is accepting his actions, so I find that appalling

Does anyone else think they recognise a pattern in this case whereby someone is on to spouse or DO #3 or #4, and sort of collapses into a completely passive puddle? Like they’ve run out of steam and are willing to accept literally any standards from their OH?

Has she ever given any explanation of why she is still with him?

@RickiTarr yeh, instead of thinking I could just be on my own, she is thinking all men are shit when you get to know them...?

But although she's passive in her own lack of action ending the relationship, she's not passive in reprimanding others for having an opinion on her passivity!

@RandomLondoner

I'm not sure what she meant, without reading the whole article, but I think I agree with her. The exact example I have in mind is this: would an MP who campaigns for the abolition of private education be a hypocrite if they were at the same time sending their own children to a private school? I would say no, or not necessarily, but I bet 99% of people would say yes, and I would say that in doing so they are displaying a lack of critical thinking skills.

I'm also not sure why you think there is anything outrageous about what she's saying. She may or may not have a point, but it's not outragous to be wrong.

Maybe I have understood your post. Or even what she meant. My dinners calling, so don't have time to dwell on it.

That's what i thought.

I think she's hoping it will just go away but surely when she's doing publicity for her next book interviewers will ask. At least one must ask her.