There has been a massive move to alter the trajectory of the Westminster paedophile scandal in recent weeks, with mainstream political commentators, politicians of all stripes, and even political party operatives laying themselves and their reputations on the line to seemingly distract from the core thrust of the investigations: child rape.
The latest interference move has been run by the Spectator magazine, and surprisingly, the piece has been written by the not-so-establishment journalist Brendan O’Neill, who has contributed many praiseworthy comments to Britain’s political discourse in recent months. This however, is not one of them.
O’Neill says: “The Savile scandal has nurtured an ugly climate, where half-baked claims against any old celeb or politician are taken seriously and splashed across the papers, aided and abetted by police forces that have lost the plot and publicity-hungry politicians who stand up in parliament to say ‘I have evidence of a Westminster paedo ring!’ By which they mean some former drug addict phoned them once and claimed to have been tortured by a Tory.”
Perhaps. Or perhaps his own allegations here are baseless, unless he can produce the telephone transcripts from said drug addict. The parliamentarians willing to stand up and be counted on the issue should be lauded, not derided – although when Breitbart London enquired, Labour MP John Mann wouldn’t explain why he wouldn’t use parliamentary privilege to name the people he has said “should be in prison”.
But this speaks more to an establishment cover-up, as we know for certain there has been over the past few decades, rather than a sense of witch-hunting.
Political party members I know have been removed from their positions and persistently hounded for their stance on the paedophile scandal. Once again, the old boys’ network has swung into effect – and those implicated are being looked after by those who promised them political asylum.
You only have to look so far as Tim Fortescue, former Tory Whip’s interview from 1995 to see that this is not just true, but commonplace, and expected. He said:
“Anyone with any sense who was in trouble would come to the whips and tell them the truth, and say now, “I’m in a jam, can you help?” It might be debt, it might be a scandal involving small boys, or any kind of scandal which a member seemed likely to be mixed up in, they’d come and ask if we could help. And if we could, we did. We would do everything we can because we would store up brownie points. That sounds a pretty nasty reason but one of the reasons is, if we can get a chap out of trouble, he’ll do as we ask forever more.” [Emphases added]
Now, one of the liberal-left’s favourite new canards is being rolled out in defence of these people – and in defence against investigation and justice: homophobia.
Well, far be it from me to speculate: but isn’t the conflation between child rape and homophobia homophobic in itself?
I’m not saying there isn’t a very tiny minority out there who would utilise the paedophile scandal as a cover for their prejudices and prior grievances. But you’ve got to believe that such individuals would be so small in number, and so incoherent, that it would hardly have turned into a mainstream witch hunt on the back of their claims.
I’ve argued before against jumping to conclusions. But I’m going to argue against letting people off the hook purely on the basis that you might offend someone based on the sexuality. It is a risible standpoint.
We did this in Rotherham, when over 1400 girls were groomed and raped, and the establishment response was to put their fingers in their ears and scream, “La la la!” because they’d rather ignore they problem than be accused of “racism” towards the scores of mainly Pakistani men perpetrating the crimes.
Let’s not make this mistake again with regards the Westminster paedophile scandal.
There’s a fair, middle ground on issues with this level of sensitivity, and it is miles away from screaming, “Queers!” and equidistant from yelling, “Homophobe!”