Rod Liddle thinks Susie Green should be jailed

[ClingFilmApplications]

In today's Sunday Times, Rod Liddle states of Susie Green:
"My own view is that she should be in prison for child abuse and assault."

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/comment/this-is-beyond-satire-woke-britain-look-out-or-youll-render-me-obsolete-6xff2xvb2

(don't know how to do share tokens, sorry)

James Kirkup should go down in history as one of the journos who has totally blown the lid off this over the past year. He's been amazing - along with notable others, of course.

I'll always remember something he wrote in the very first article - "I discussed this with colleagues, and they said oh, don't touch the trans stuff with a bargepole" - but he did, and I'm very grateful.

He's also reported that behind the scenes in Parliament, many MPs share women's concerns, but are too scared to speak out. Which is terrifying. But has constantly given me hope that the wheels will eventually come off the trans juggernaut.

Oh fgs. The thread is about an article by Rod Liddle and deals with journalistic integrity, free speech and by implication the complicity of the left wing press. 1 comment on that is a derail? You could have just ignored it.

Funny how "don't tell women to shut up " "don't tell women what to post" works only in one direction.

MagicMix

I'm not going to bother reading an article by Rod Liddle

That sort of narrow- minded "I'm only going to read people I agree with" is the mindset that led to the ridiculous "safe spaces" "no platforming" situation we have now.

I think Joani Walsh is spot on. Rod Liddle is no-one's idea of a victim so SG has no basis for not going after him for saying the same things.

I'll always remember something he wrote in the very first article - "I discussed this with colleagues, and they said oh, don't touch the trans stuff with a bargepole" - but he did, and I'm very grateful.

8th February 2018
James Kirkup Spectator,
'Can we have an honest debate about gender?'
(extract)
"This article is about gender and the law. When I asked several friends, politicians and journalists, about writing it, they all said the same: don’t. It will go badly for you. And that is why I’m writing this. In fact, that’s what I’m writing about: fear. The fear that persuades some people they can’t say what they think about something, or even ask questions about it. Fear that prevents proper discussion of public policy and the public interest. Fear that chills debate.

I’ve been a journalist for 20 years. I belong to no party and I have no allegiances or affiliations. I don’t have an agenda or an axe to grind. I just think this is important and I’m worried the law on the recognition of gender is not being debated properly: when should state and society consider a person to be a woman or a man? What about people who wish to change the gender they are recognised as having? Mostly, for reasons largely beyond my scope here, that means people who were in the past recognised (in law) as men, and who wish now to be recognised as female." (continues)

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/02/can-we-have-an-honest-debate-about-gender/

his second article 'Fear & Loathing Grips the Gender Debate' focussed on Mumsnet FWR:
blogs.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/fear-and-loathing-grips-the-gender-debate/

The thread is about an article by Rod Liddle and deals with journalistic integrity, free speech and by implication the complicity of the left wing press.

I hardly ever agree with you, Lass, but in this case I concur!

Completely agree with you Lass.

Rod is of course correct about SG, but shame it’s sandwiched between a bit of islamaphobia and a pop at middle-aged women.

The man is an odious twat, but I’m allowed to agree with odious twats sometimes, even if it’s for completely different reasons. still, he is a nasty bigoted odious twat.

Rod is of course correct about SG, but shame it’s sandwiched between a bit of islamaphobia and a pop at middle-aged women.

Yes.

Although it has to be said, that Home Office decision is an outrage - I just don't agree with Liddle's framing of it.

The fact that right wing male journalists and the press are now covering this is critical. I know that they don't face the same onslaught as women get and the trans taliban have yet to set the police on them, but I am eternally grateful that they uphold the best journalistic standards in covering abuse (of power and more generally) where they see it. They also have access to politicians. Given that only the well funded gravy train lobby groups currently have the ear of politicians in order to strip away women and children's rights, the presence of these journalists is vital.

I just don't feel like it. Don't need to hear how he phrased it. I'm already familiar with the issue.

Just want to express my appreciation for Lass, not because I usually agree with her ( most of the time I don’t ) but I think it’s so important that we don’t become an echo chamber.

Rod is of course correct about SG, but shame it’s sandwiched between a bit of islamaphobia and a pop at middle-aged women.

Those whose focus of concern is for Safeguarding & Women's rights need to be aware of others' priorities.

If we recognise how liberal feminism was co-opted by men's sexual rights movement, its clear other 'movements'/ideologies which are harmful to women, children (especially girls) & vulnerable adults will similarly seek to gain advantage and traction.

I'm not in principle opposed to reading something by Rod Liddle fgs. I'm not trying to keep myself 'pure'. The thread title nicely summarised his take and I agree with it. I don't enjoy his style so I can't be arsed to read his article.

I'm shocked that the Guardian hasn't covered the Home Office letter. It's a hugely troubling story, and normally the Guardian is very quick to seize on idiotic or malicious actions by the HO in regards to asylum seekers.

Like everyone else here, I find Liddle's views mostly abhorrent, but then these days I find that the people on the so-called progressive left whom I would normally agree with are happily condoning child abuse, so, frankly, what can you do?

The strength of the article lies in the fact that he is NOT a feminist or have much sympathies with the call to protect women's rights.

It goes to show that opposition to censorship, vexatious prosecutions and the batshit trans lobby is not confined to Mumsnet and radical feminists. Even the Men's Rights advocates can't stomach the way people like Green have been indulged.

I loved the way he contrasted the treatment of Green and Farrow: one got investigated by the police and one got a big wodge of cash from the lottery.

.

Just to prove that point, his piece on Mermaids sits alongside stuff

There won't be a journalist alive who isn't all over this now.

You mean any journalist who is worth their salt and understands the purpose of journalism. I like all these phoney opinion Columnist types who are slaves to an ideology...?

I loved the way he contrasted the treatment of Green and Farrow: one got investigated by the police and one got a big wodge of cash from the lottery.

Yes me too.

TBF to Rod Liddle if I remember correctly he was one of the only journalists I saw speak out in support of Linda Bellos when she was being dragged through court. And like it or not he represents the views of a large number of people. I'm grateful for whoever shines a light on this stuff.

Isn't the point here, that child protection, and this includes being very cautious indeed about giving children below the age of consent access to hormones and surgery, is a matter for everyone. It is NOT party political.

I would expect parents, whether right or left leaning, to be very worried if their children fall under the spell of Mermaids and You Tubers. I would expect journalists, whether right or left, to be ready to look critically at Mermaids.

Some children will be genuinely dysphoric, but I think it is generally agreed that with many there is a lot of other stuff going on. If there were a child weight loss charity which did not make every effort to filter out children with eating disorders, I would expect journalists across the political spectrum to rail against them.

There are times when society needs to take a stand. This is societal not political.

and no I am not a Liddle fan either

Those whose focus of concern is for Safeguarding & Women's rights need to be aware of others' priorities.

If we recognise how liberal feminism was co-opted by men's sexual rights movement, its clear other 'movements'/ideologies which are harmful to women, children (especially girls) & vulnerable adults will similarly seek to gain advantage and traction.

Yes. While a coalition is forming around opposition to extremist genderism, that coalition is not going to hold very far past that.

You mean any journalist who is worth their salt and understands the purpose of journalism. I like all these phoney opinion Columnist types who are slaves to an ideology...?

Oh, please goddess we see the end of highly paid columnists and a resurgence of data-driven and investigative journalism.

Isn't the point here, that child protection, and this includes being very cautious indeed about giving children below the age of consent access to hormones and surgery, is a matter for everyone. It is NOT party political.

That's one (incredibly important) point about the substantial failure of duty of care & Safeguards in the way children have been treated by medics, charities, politicians and other adults with power & responsibility.

There are also many wider issues concerning the Safeguarding of children, vulnerable adults and Women's Rights.

People do need to take a stand and it should always be considered and deliberate.

I have to say I do enjoy Rod Liddle's style. Rarely agree with much that he says but I enjoy his take on it.

I have to say I do enjoy Rod Liddle's style

me too. I enjoy a bit of outrageous rudeness. it's bracing

but shame it’s sandwiched between a bit of islamaphobia

I don't think what he said was Islamaphobic unless anything critical of Islam is Islamaphobic.

I find that the people on the so-called progressive left whom I would normally agree with are happily condoning child abuse, so, frankly, what can you do?

I am going to start a thread following up an almost throwaway comment made by someone yesterday concerning the death of a Belgian Cardinal which shows you cannot blindly assume progressive and liberal = good.