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.

Her 'partner' has committed horrifying crimes. She clearly doesn't think they are a big deal. That tells us many things, none if which are good.

I wonder Clymene whether that is something you do professionally or is your agenda limited to holier than thou posts on MN?

I'm afraid you're being a little disingenuous in your assumptions. An AS will show my posts do relate mainly to criminal offences, but often in support of families of offenders, and to correct the usual misinformation. Nor are they limited to sexual offences, but again, clarifying that wouldn't suit your self stated agenda.

If you have concerns about my posts on this thread, feel free to report me rather than trawling through my previous comments. However what I've stated here is legally correct in relation to sentencing etc. These offences are not viewed seriously by the police, social services or the courts all of whom prefer to focus on actual grooming and contact offences, quite rightly.

@HelloBunny

When she called LJ a cunt, on Twitter, her excuse was that her partner had just left the room, and that she’d momentarily got carried away, when left to her own devices (literally!). That’s rather impulsive... Anyway, I do remember thinking that was quite sad, at the time. For a grown woman to say something like that.

It’s a tangle isn’t it?

Too messy a narrative for fiction, which I always think is a test of sorts.

A fair number of journos are scumbags to be honest. Burchill, Hodges, Liddle to name a few. Why they ever get paid to pontificate their bullshit I'll never know.

@IndecentCakes

Her 'partner' has committed horrifying crimes. She clearly doesn't think they are a big deal. That tells us many things, none if which are good.

Whatever the details it isn’t healthy, I agree.

Woman is partner to a man with several convictions for violence, let alone the sex offences. I hope she is safe.

You’re not wrong, GOTP. I do wonder as well, if Knight considers herself to mix with such echelons of society, whereby her partner’s crimes are not much of a problem.
And, therefore the rest of us, are just in fact stupid for having a problem with it. That might be the hypocrisy of which she speaks... And does not believe in.

'Holier than thou'? Blimey, your bar is a bit low if you think condemning sex offenders is holier than thou @Anaiis.

To be fair, I looked you up on the notoriously awful search facility on the app so you may have a very long history of explaining a wide range of criminal offences but the only ones I could see were sexual.

And I'm not ashamed of my posts. MN is frequented by women and the vast, vast majority of crime us committed by men. So many women on MN are so browbeaten by abusive men that they can't even see which way is up. I think MN plays a vital role in helping those women to recognise they're in an abusive relationship. And that includes being a mother who is in a relationship with a man who is a paedophile.

However much sympathy I have for women, I cannot condone them staying with a ma pen who abuses children. Her children or anyone else's.

It's a line IK has crossed, not because she's desperate or has nowhere else to go but because she chooses to stay. That, I don't understand and I think it's utterly indefensible.

Well said @Clymene

I just cannot get my head around this. I've read India for over 20 years. I know this sounds stupid but I really thought I knew her. I keep thinking that there is something we don't know. I remember hearing of a case where the dad took the conviction when the teenage son did the crime. I keep thinking it's that. I really need to rearrange my brain about this 😩

I was referencing your rather pious statement about defending women and children...

I think the best way to advocate for people is to ensure they have accurate information; hence why on threads like this I feel it's important to correct the usual misinformation put forward as fact.

And uncomfortable as that may be, it extends to referencing Eric Joyce as a paedophile. He is a convicted sex offender, but it's reductive to label him or others convicted of the same offence as 'a paedo'. Some are, some aren't. Bear in mind that it is possession of the image which is the criteria for conviction; the CPS don't have to evidence any intent in relation to that image. Lucy Faithfull has a lot of helpful information for both offenders and their families, making it clear that matters are rarely black and white.

Personally I wouldn't stay with someone convicted of a violent offence so I have no desire to support Eric Joyce per se, he's clearly not a pleasant man. However as said above, it is interesting that a man can be violent to others, even kill another person, and be free to live their life without approbation (on completion of their sentence) often without any judgment of them or their families. Yet a non contact offence relating to images of child sexual abuse results in the offender and their family being effectively ostracised and subject to derision. Of course, as fewer such offences are publicised and indeed prosecuted, it's less likely people will ever be aware and this level of public censure will not occur.

Apart from the nepotism and still partnering a paedophile who downloaded thousands of category 4 child abuse images, she's simply an arrogant shite writer a la Burchill.

I remember reading a piece about her having a facial and saying the beautician was 'breathing like a rapist'. I imagined her giggling at how controversial she was.

She's hateful and bizarrely has written diet books and has a beauty column?!

Women in the public eye will be fewer and fewer over time (a relatively short time imv, say 5 years) - SM will make their lives impossible, authors, journalists, MPs, they are criticised, condemned, threatened, their families are threatened, perhaps like IK they associate / have associated with a paedophile, or perhaps they make a misjudged comment or perhaps do nothing but someone makes up or imagines a slight, or they are black and dare to have a career in the public eye like Diane Abbott. Sadly it is women who are critics/ make malicious threats as much as men.
We don't know what IKs living arrangements are or the situation with her DCs but to try to encourage a pile on and demand she leaves the public eye is more misogyny imv. I can't think offhand of a situation where a husband is held to be punished for his partners/ wife's actions.

That’s ridiculous @TheoMeo - It’s a pretty high bar when all we ask of people with a high public profile is not to be nor support abusers of women and DC.

when all we ask of people with a high public profile is not to be nor support abusers of women and DC
Are you saying JKR, Diane Abbott support abusers of women

@TheoMeo

when all we ask of people with a high public profile is not to be nor support abusers of women and DC Are you saying JKR, Diane Abbott support abusers of women

No.

What on Earth are you talking about?

The subject of the thread is India Knight. You seem to have some objection to posters commentating on her inexplicable decision to remain with a sex offender. It is not misogynistic to comment.

Rowling & Abbott are neither here nor there.

She is in a relationship with a paedophile who was last year done for making child pornography. Ergo - she has crap judgement...

You seem to have some objection to posters commentating on her inexplicable decision to remain with a sex offender. It is not misogynistic to comment.

It was more how dare she write columns, publish books, she's rich etc etc etc - if all it was was a measured discussion about her choices then ok. Every paedophile will have a mother, possibly a wife - I don't feel they should be forced to retire from public life because of the behaviour of the man.
Plus we don't actually know the living arrangements.

Paedophile = a person who is sexually attracted to children. What would you call him @Anaiis?

"The prosecution said there was evidence of searches "for material for five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10-year-old girls"."

@TheoMeo

You seem to have some objection to posters commentating on her inexplicable decision to remain with a sex offender. It is not misogynistic to comment.

It was more how dare she write columns, publish books, she's rich etc etc etc - if all it was was a measured discussion about her choices then ok. Every paedophile will have a mother, possibly a wife - I don't feel they should be forced to retire from public life because of the behaviour of the man.
Plus we don't actually know the living arrangements.

I think it’s that- for a long while - a lot of her journalism has been on the promotional side - which is perfectly legitimate in itself & common in the nationals - and the rest opinion columns.

So if you’re going to make a good living telling people what to eat, what to wear, what to slap on their visages and what to think, too, be prepared for people to think you’re setting a bad example when you support the insupportable. Something like that.

It’s a choice to make yourself a personality, a character, in your own writing, and to opine so brutally about others. It doesn’t have to be done that way, and she has always been very high profile.

I don't know anything about this woman's relationship, other than her partner has been convicted several times of violent and aggressive behaviour. (As well, of course, as the sexual offences).

As is often observed on here, it's not always as straightforward as 'LTB'.

Clymene as someone who is a self proclaimed advocate for the vulnerable, maybe you should do a little more research into why the use of a term such as paedophile is unhelpful, inflammatory and incorrect in the context of these offences? There are many reasons why such offences are committed and a sexual attraction to children is only one of them. It's therefore overly simplistic to label this man, and those convicted of these type of offences, as a paedo. Lumping him in with those who have committed grooming or contact offences shows a lack of critical thinking.

He should be referred to as a convicted sex offender, at law that is a more correct definition.

Is a woman responsible for the actions of her convicted sex offender partner? Absolutely not.
Does his offending mean that her views are somehow invalid or that she should be derided by association?
Again no.

India Knight is someone who's polarised opinions for many years, a lot of people found her irritating, unrelatable, accusations of nepotism abounded long before this. The fact she's not really liked by many people perhaps makes it easier to turn on her, and be so critical of her for her partner's offences.

I wonder if we were talking about someone in the media who is more generally more positively regarded whether the conversation would be different? I suspect so.

Actually I used to quite like her. But I have an issue with any woman who chooses her relationship with an abusive man over her children.

Watching children being filmed being raped is not better than raping a child yourself which is what you're implying. A child is still being raped. And if you read any accounts from women who have had videos of their sexual abuse put onto pornhub, you would know that knowing that thousands of men are enjoying watching them being raped is just as traumatising as the original act.

Whether or not you think it isn't 'better', at law it is regarded as a significantly less serious offence - indeed as I said in some areas it has essentially been decriminalised. Those are the facts. No one is unsympathetic to victims of abuse and they may well feel that it's as bad to possess the images as to collude in the abuse itself but the legal position is as it is.

@Anaiis

Whether or not you think it isn't 'better', at law it is regarded as a significantly less serious offence - indeed as I said in some areas it has essentially been decriminalised. Those are the facts. No one is unsympathetic to victims of abuse and they may well feel that it's as bad to possess the images as to collude in the abuse itself but the legal position is as it is.

It’s also a “fact” that there is a societal & cultural weight assigned to these things, though, and thankfully that’s grown more serious in recent years. Disapproval is a powerful mechanism in the control of crime and deviance.