In response to Laura Perrins: Bring on the vigilante grannies!,
Peter Evans wrote:
Might it just be the case that Mr Ellwood intuitively senses that it’s easier to point the finger at allegedly ‘walk-on-by’ Brits than confront the true ideological pathogen that has opened the doors to this obscene stabfest: multiculturalist-intersectionalist feminism? Insult the typical Brit, and the chances are that he or she will shrug it off and get on with their business. Merely challenge a feminist, however, and the chances are that she will get ‘triggered’ into an eye-bulging, foot-stamping tantrum and demand your complete social and professional destruction. Challenging feminism, or as I prefer to put it, speaking truthfully, is now hate speech, and severe punishment must ensue for all offenders.
I have a similar childhood memory to Mr Ellwood, as it happens. On the way home from school one wintry afternoon, I and a group of friends stopped to engage in a playfight. Thirteen-year-old boys were inclined to do these things back in the day, before they were ‘corrected’ by feminists and made to understand that such displays of aggression were evidence of toxic masculinity. A man who lived on the working-class estate we were mucking about in (and which was close to our school) crossed over from his front garden to the patch of grass we were fake-brawling on. ‘What’s going on here, boys?’ he asked, rather firmly.
We were able to convince him that we were playing. He made it clear that he was just checking in case someone was being bullied or hurt. The playfight stopped, we chatted amiably with him for a while, and then proceeded homewards.
The key point was this: the adult intervener was behaving responsibly and decently but I suspect he felt able to ‘wade in’ back in those rather more culturally homogeneous days because he sensed that (a) we’d respect him and (b) we wouldn’t beat the living daylights out of him or plunge cold steel into his chest.
Those days have gone, and berating indigenous Brits for ‘walking by’ when the risk of having your left ventricle sliced open is rather higher in certain areas is a pathetic exercise in fatuous handwringing and empty ‘tut-tutting’.
A quota-hired, feminised, multicultural police force is clearly not the solution. Maybe Mr Ellwood would help remedy this tragic stain of murderous violence if he worked to attract more decent, courageous, strong men into the police force, instead of giving the nod to pernicious legislation like the 2010 Equality Act which was designed to socially engineer increased ‘representation’ of women and other ‘protected groups’ in the workplace. By using weasel words like ‘positive action’ instead of positive discrimination, it privileged ‘protected groups’ and simultaneously made a mockery of equality before the law.
Last month, the chair of the National Police Chiefs Council, Sara Thornton, called for police forces to be permitted to positively discriminate (currently illegal) in favour of ethnic minorities (i.e., at the expense of competent and eager indigenous British candidates). Obviously, the only reason why the police are finding it impossible to recruit ‘sufficient’ numbers of BMEs into their ranks is because of that favourite phantom of feminist-intersectionalist delusion, mephitic white racism (which now takes the form of the sister delusion ‘unconscious bias’, or ‘BS’ as most of us would call it). It can’t possibly be to do with other factors, like a greater proportion of BMEs being less interested in policing, and maybe even being more inclined to share a certain antipathy toward that profession. Ergo, white (males) must be discriminated against to serve the requirements of social justice.
I wonder what Mr Ellwood will say to that demand when it comes before parliament? I suspect we may see more arrests for rude language on Twitter and more clampdowns on elderly Christian street preachers for being ‘Islamophobic’. But I don’t think it’ll do much to stop the villainous butchery that’s plaguing too many of our streets.
Bravo, Laura, for another excellent article addressing this suicidal madness.
Busy Mum wrote:
What granny – or whoever – in her right mind would give two naughty little boys a talking-to on the bus nowadays? She’d be hauled off to the police station and charged with all sorts of things as the naughty little boys will know all about their rights, their self-esteem and the number for Childline.
Roy Davey-Jenkins wrote:
I don’t think that Mr Ellwood is advocating that grandmothers become the new visible front-line in the fight against crime. Let’s be fair! The geriatric intervention on the bus was merely an illustration from his boyhood.
His main point is that ‘if good people en masse step forward, they close down the ability for bad things to happen’.
And by and large, as a general principle, this is true; unity is the way forward. All of us acting together, consistently, for as long as it takes, might bring about an improvement at least.
But, and here’s the rub: government would obviously have to play their part as well, which would mean a radical U-turn on virtually all that they currently do, which has led only to a fragmentation of society, not a coming together in unity.
There’s no point in getting involved, as Mr Ellwood suggests, with a government in place that is fighting against us!