KjK "insane rant" thread 2

[AdamRyan]

First thread filled up just as it was getting interesting

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5036512-kjks-insane-rant

So let's keep it going. My characterisation if the two basic positions are:

1)KJK is a stone cold legend, haters gonna hate but many women will give her cash to bathe in champagne

2. KJK is taking right wing positions for clicks and cash, most recently criticising a doctors conference to stay relevant.

Happy to discuss further. There are some particular posts I want to respond to which I will c&p below

They did a spaghetti Bolognese stock cube some years ago, on running out I was rather perturbed to discover they'd stopped doing them.

It was a sad day.

For stews and casseroles, I just fling the oxo cubes in uncrumbled. They melt down fine during cooking.

I suspect MNHQ might have given Adam a warning, what with all the deletions, so hopefully this thread will be allowed to die.

I think the deletions were because people took exception to some of my links but I'll be sure to keep an eye on the inbox

I agree with nearly all of that. I don't agree both are "a failure of the left".

Most people wouldn't want to be called racist. That's not a "left right" thing. I also am not at all convinced that was a factor. It didn't come up really in the enquiries. I think its a smokescreen by far right making hay.

And the police have to make really difficult risk based decisions all the time. Balancing releasing information about offenders with risk of public unrest and vigilante action. I don't envy them at all. And I can't see any way that narrative is influenced by "the left".

It annoys me that now every debate gets turned into left vs right. Some things are not political.

In terms of "taking responsibility" I'm not either left wing or in any way able to influence narrative on grooming gangs (apart from posting on here). I'm assuming you aren't either. So I'm not sure what you mean by "we need to take responsibility"?

🤯

I was referring to what KJK said. I'll post it again for you:

"What we know is, that throughout the United kingdom at this second, what we know is that there's grooming gangs in Telford, a young woman that never actually really made it to the mainstream news, wasn't a big story, was cut up, and I think she was put in sort of meat that was sold for human consumption. We know that there are grooming gangs, we know that there are vast numbers of men involved in these grooming gangs, and we know that there's weird cover up stuff going on that only makes sense if the other people in power are also raping children."

I don't think its true that "other people in power" are covering up "vast numbers of men involved in these grooming gangs" because they are "also raping children".

KJKs words. I disagree.

Your examples aren't really relevant to her point.

Ah I see you have been paying attention to what I said! Have you actually read it?

I'd read no more into that than any other user name tbh. I've had lots, just from my favourite book of the moment.

That's pretty hilarious though. The fun I could have with insinuating smears based on people's user names.

I highly recommend it as a book in any case.

Have fun with mine!

Well same. I don't talk about her irl.
It's really not that deep. I'm intrigued by the rabid defense of even the slightest implication of anything negative about her, whilst overlooking some of the more unappealing aspects of her behaviour.

It's extremely unbalanced and unusual and that makes me curious.

This thread illustrates the phenomenon in action - endless posters popping on to essentially tell me to shut up, insult my communication style, imply I condone child abuse, all the while ignoring the actual subject, which is stuff she has said.

Do you agree with this?
"What we know is, that throughout the United kingdom at this second, what we know is that there's grooming gangs in Telford, a young woman that never actually really made it to the mainstream news, wasn't a big story, was cut up, and I think she was put in sort of meat that was sold for human consumption. We know that there are grooming gangs, we know that there are vast numbers of men involved in these grooming gangs, and we know that there's weird cover up stuff going on that only makes sense if the other people in power are also raping children."

If not, why do you think she said it? Ill informed? Click bait? Genuinely believes it?

As a vegan I find it upsetting 😂

(I'm not vegan. Just making a joke)

😂 If it helps no beetles were actually boiled!

You may be too young to remember the summer of 76, but it was scorching hot. 4 year old me was lying on the pavement wiggling my legs and arms in the air pretending to be an upturned beetle and was asked if I was a girl beetle or a boy beetle. A boiled beetle I replied!

I don't see how picking over a tiny proportion of her output is helpful or useful. People who say a lot in public fora are, of course, more likely to say some stuff that will be twatty or wrong or dodgy or, as is often the case, simply misinterpreted: Germaine Greer is a great example of this over the years. Loads of great stuff, very insightful and illuminating and entertaining, but some very questionable moments. So what. Not everyone self-edits.

The bigger picture is that KJK has contributed to widening the Overton Window and she does give women a platform. For those 2 things alone, she should be applauded. And thinking that doesn't make me a fangirl or a lapdog or a 'rabid' () defender. That's just silly.

I don’t see what’s so awful about what she said.

We know that rich and powerful men have committed similar crimes and covered up for each other.

There are lots of terrible sexual crimes against children that go unpunished. One example being the men who aren’t sent to prison despite having 30,000 child abuse images on their hard drive.

I’ve seen people speculate that the judges themselves must possess similar material if they feel so blasé about it.

So what?

You have to look at it as a list, not conflate everything in the list.

The list is:

A. There's grooming gangs in Telford;
B. A young woman that never actually really made it to the mainstream news, wasn't a big story, was cut up, and I think she was put in sort of meat that was sold for human consumption;
C. We know that there are grooming gangs;
D. We know that there are vast numbers of men involved in these grooming gangs; and
E. We know that there's weird cover up stuff going on that only makes sense if the other people in power are also raping children.

The cover up isn't necessarily about 'vast numbers of men', as it's separate in the list. The transcript writer hasn't picked up on the punctuation needed to make it a list, where each point is separate.

My anger and disgust is directed at the men who abused these children.

KJK speaks on behalf of the girls who were not protected.

Sick fuckers who allegedly joked about what happened to one poor girl who has never been found.

Apologies for delay in response, was having a celebratory Chinese as nightmare neighbours look to be moving away!

It seems in my absence however that @NoWordForFluffy has pretty much said what I was going to anyway, probably far better than I could have in my post-dinner-stupor - I didn't interpret KJK's clip as relating those things to one another.
More like she was listing off "What we know", and that the cover ups only make sense (to her) if there's others in power committing the same offences (which objectively we pretty much categorically know to be true, people in power DO also do those things!).
In my head when she was speaking I literally saw bullet points, that's not to say that they all lead on from one another - Or at least that's not how I, or seemingly a lot of others interpreted it.

According to a BBC article, citing a 2022 HMIPFO report:

‘However the HMICFRS found, of the 27 investigations it examined, "the most common ethnic group of offenders was white; the next most common ethnic group was Asian or British Asian.’

Not sure that ‘coming second’ in this instance is much of a win, though?

[I was raised in an Iranian muslim family, so feel I am somewhat inoculated from the stain of ‘casual islamaphobia’.]

@AdamRyan what did you mean by this?

“I guess it's even more interesting having been on the boards so long, remembering the poster that was here, remembering how others used to behave and seeing the difference. I'm interested why and how that happens. “

what was kjk like when she was on mumsnet and how did others used to behave?

I couldn't care less about her campaigning.

Well for once, Adam, you've said something entirely accurate.

@AdamRyan

This thread illustrates the phenomenon in action - endless posters popping on to essentially tell me to shut up, insult my communication style, imply I condone child abuse, all the while ignoring the actual subject, which is stuff she has said.

FWIW, I agree with you. All the above has happened to me, too, under a different username. I had to change the username as it was attacked, too.

And going on what KJK posts on her Twitter feed - yes, that's certainly right-leaning, even a bit far-right. She even re-posted some garbage about Angela Merkel having contracted a deadly disease from eating the flesh of children. CPAC certainly did have a part to play in her speaking tour: 'The logo of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) appeared on her promotional materials, and the organisation’s Executive Director had previously spoken about why they thought Australians needed to hear from Keen.' (From a promotional article.) Keen claims on her Twitter she paid for flights; but the CPAC director said otherwise: 'Prior to this, Andrew Cooper, the founder and executive director of CPAC Australia, spoke to ABC Melbourne and confirmed his organisation had paid for Keen’s flights to Australia.'

I tend to think where there's smoke, there's fire.

... and her actual campaigning?

... doesn't render the above post irrelevant or untrue.

This thread illustrates the phenomenon in action - endless posters popping on to essentially tell me to shut up, insult my communication style, imply I condone child abuse, all the while ignoring the actual subject, which is stuff she has said.

We've discussed things she's said. As well as misrepresentations of things posters have claimed she's said, including Adam.

I could respond to all of the points in this to show that you're actually misrepresenting - again - but I can't be arsed.

People robustly disagreeing isn't attack. It's disagreement. Unfortunately when many people disagree with either your viewpoint, or how you've interpreted what you've read / heard, I imagine it's difficult. However, it's the nature of chat forums where anybody can post and sometimes lots of people do in response.

Just on this thread alone, there's been:

Attempts to derail by talking about cheese, celebrities, and Oxo cubes.

Attempts to link Adam to IW.

Attempts to imply Adam is some sort of danger to children based on her views / user name.

Posts calling her "dim" and other attacks, some of which have been deleted.

"Robust disagreement" my arse.