It seems a (un)civil war has erupted over in left-wing blogland, leading to dummies being spat and toys thrown out of prams everywhere.
It seems bleeding heart, intemperate blogger John Band (of 'sexually abused girl probably had it coming because of gang culture' infamy - and I wonder if he ever did eat that hatstore...?) caused a wee bit of a stir by (correctly, in my view) refusing to go along with Amnesty International's latest campaign against 'violence against women', called the 'One In Ten' campaign.
You see, he disagreed with the figures produced by AI and the main thrust of the campaign, and said so, leading to the squalling rage of the 'Never mind the facts, what about the feeeeelllllings!' crowd.
All very amusing reading...
PS: Oh, and on his own blog, John Band also wished that: '..if I induced anyone to give up blogging it’d be Guido or Dizzy or JuliaM or similar…'
There you have it - they don't want debate, or to win hearts and minds over on leftie-blog land. They don't want to show that their ideas and ways of working are better.
They simply want to silence everyone else.
I did thoroughly enjoy JB's thread. Maybe the fundamental philosophy at the core of left wing thinking is lying, for the sake of it - not to further any end, just because they enjoy lying, twisting facts, faux logic etc.
ReplyDeleteThe split second that leftie JB says "Hang about here, this is going too far, this is not true" he is immediately cast out of the tribe.
Socialists, the largest movement in history and the least ever successful. Their creed is spite through dogma, hatred through fear, control by bullying. I Loathe them with a passion.
ReplyDelete"..immediately cast out of the tribe."
ReplyDeleteYup, it's more like a religion, isn't it? 'Heretic!'...
"..spite through dogma, hatred through fear, control by bullying.."
Not sure that JohnB would describe himself as a socialist. But it's a pretty accurate summation of their MO, to be sure.
On the actual issue, Band is right that Amnesty are trying to mislead, that's glaringly obvious, but wrong to use the British Crime Survey to estimate the extent of domestic violence.
ReplyDeleteCrime survey's are very poor at detecting domestic violence and probably underestimate it by at least 50%. To quote from this:
"When residents of San Jose, California, who had reported to the police that they had been assaulted were later interviewed in a test of the NCS, only 48% said they had been assaulted; the percentage who admitted to being assaulted was lowest for those who had earlier told the police that their assailant was a relative."
So if the BCS estimates one in 40 women have been the victims of an assault the real figure is much higher and probably closer to the one Amnesty made up.
Lemme think... when John's previous blog was shut down by blackmailing scumbags, just about the entire blogosphere from the loony left to the foaming far right spoke out against on principle, except for... Oh that's right. You. And David Duff.
ReplyDeleteThey simply want to silence everyone else.
There's a great big hypocritical beam in your eye, M.
"So if the BCS estimates one in 40 women have been the victims of an assault the real figure is much higher..."
ReplyDeleteHmm, I wonder about the reason for the discrepancy there?
Illegal immigrants afraid to speak to the police?
"...when John's previous blog was shut down by blackmailing scumbags..."
ReplyDeleteBlackmail? That's against the law, Larry. JohnB would have had a good case if 'blackmail' was being tried on him.
So, what was the result of the police investigation?
Oh, there wasn't one, was there?
Odd, very odd...
With you after him, JuliaM, I suspect he'd become "Band on the run"…
ReplyDeleteOh, what a tangled web they weave, these Lefties who just must deceive!
"With you after him, JuliaM, I suspect he'd become "Band on the run"…"
ReplyDeleteLol! ;)
John's previous blog was shut down by blackmailing scumbags
ReplyDeleteActually Shot By Both Sides was shut down by John Band. Apparently he didn't feel a joke about Jews and ovens was worth defending.
My understanding is that "blackmail" only works when people have done something disreputable. You can't blackmail people who are genuinely decent. No smoke without fire if you like.
Mind you blackmail was Larry's term not mine.
No smoke without fire if you like... should be the tagline to this blog.
ReplyDeleteThanks for the suggestion, Lar' old chum, but I'll stick with the original... ;)
ReplyDelete"Hmm, I wonder about the reason for the discrepancy there?
ReplyDeleteIllegal immigrants afraid to speak to the police?"
No the study was from the early 1980s before the boom in illegal immigration, anyway this was about people who did report crimes to the police but didn't mention them to crime surveyors.
"...anyway this was about people who did report crimes to the police but didn't mention them to crime surveyors"
ReplyDeleteThat's very odd, you'd expect it to be the other way around...
I found the whole episode rather amusing... And as pointed out, the religious aspect is shown in all its glory when someone speaks heresy.
ReplyDeleteI must have missed the blackmail thingy... So, I didn't speak out either. I guess I must be a hypocrite, too... Ah, well, I have broad shoulders and don't take this blogging thing too seriously,
"That's very odd, you'd expect it to be the other way around..."
ReplyDeleteAt first, yes but when you think about a crime survey might take place many months after the event, and if things are alright at that point they might to wish to bring the assault up again.
Plus the survey takes place at home, where the assailment might also be.