Oh don’t you just love it when the Tories go all moral?

Suddenly, all that hot air about freedom, and getting the “communist state “ off our backs goes up in smoke. All those graphs and lectures about how the individual knows best , and the govt should not be telling people what to do is all junked in the trash can.

But like everything else the tories have one rule for them and another for you. Their motto should be “Taxes for thee , but not me…….. Morals for thee , but not me, and laws for thee, but not me”

So they call labour the nanny government, but the Tories won’t be? Riiiight!

If parents really want their 5 year old kid in sexy knickers, it’s up to them to make the decision. I doubt many under 10s go shopping on their own.

Of course sexualisation of children is bad but to come out on a moral crusade at this time just looks like electioneering.

Well…to begin with they’d have to sit down with their mates at The Sun and the Daily Mail and have a good chat about their content…

I hope next time Laurie Penny or some other crackpot calls for similar authoritarian measures to combat the ‘menace’ of pornography – or the Liberals reiterate their laughable ‘ban airbrushing’ policy – they’ll be met with similar hoots of derision.

After all, the Tories were campaigning against ‘filth’ when the Left still believed in free expression.

I thought the Tories were AGAINST big government?

‘I thought the Tories were AGAINST big government?’

The Tories have NEVER been for freedom of expression. They brought in the now laughed at Video Recording Act (spurred on by the Liberals of course) and Clause 28 in the 80′s and Mary Whitehouse and her ilk drew her support from their ranks.

The Fail is but a “me too” imitation of the Scum- which I don’t remember being pilloried by the Loudmouthed Left when they were being supported by a US-based soft-porno-King.
I have a good aquaintance who works for SOCA. Images of primary-school children in sexually inappropriate clothing are collected by weirdos and used as an intelligence bank for grooming purposes, Got that Sally? That’s how you want your child to be seen as, is it? a Phaedo’s target? You’re in good company as many parents can’t care/don’t care, Herds of vilderbeaste to be culled by Hyenas. If this shabby government you love so much cared about anything but their expenses, they’ve had 13 years to stop it. The protection of minors from perverts is one of the few areas of our lives that a Big government approach is needed. Even though most of the contributors here are institutionally Left, please engage brain before emoting.

9. My point was more rhetorical, but in case anyone didn’t understand why I can’t imagine a better explanation than yours.

“If this shabby government you love so much cared about anything but their expenses”

Oh how we laughed at the hypocrisy of it all.

(’9. My point was more rhetorical, but in case anyone didn’t understand why I can’t imagine a better explanation than yours.’

They’re also big on policing which increses the size and scope of government but that’s probably for another thread.)

“Left, please engage brain before emoting.”

What a pathetic defence. It is amazing how quickly a troll will appear with some story about how he has a mate in this, or that to justify his position.

Fact is the Tory party is not the party of freedom. Never has been, and never will be. They are the party of the busy body, the net curtain twitcher, the old Maid cycling to church before sticking her long beaky nose into other people business.

Almost on a daily basis we see that the tory party has not change it’s spots one jot. For all the re-branding and green wash , the tory party is the same old fashioned, fake freedom for me, but not for thee party. Any floating voter or Liberal who is stupid enough to believe that the have changed will get a big shock when all the old suspects run the country in the old right wing hypocritical way.

I actually admire Old Man’s naivity on this all (after the Labour administration showed everyone how it’s still done, after all). The stock line is “Think of the children! We must stop them being harmed”.

No-one, right, left, up or down disagrees with this. But how will the law work? Will it put a regulatory body together to mean adverts that “overly-sexualise” kids will be vetted and stopped? Possibly…but then who defines what is a “kid”? The law is left loose on that one, interpretation needed which means that the law can only act on advice officially handed out by the government, advice that can change as the mood takes them.

But then there’s also perfectly ok sex and violence (in the entertainment sense), that as long as parents do their job (which the Tories are supposedly all for promoting) don’t get seen by innocent eyes. Ah, but of course maybe there are single mums out there, irresponsible drain on the state that they are, they can’t possibly care about what their kid sees. The perfect excuse! Harsher legislation on the media industry, films and music…and while we’re at it why stop there? Mandleson made the internet fair game with his parties last dying gasp, and we all supported that (money in the back pocket and all that) so how about rolling out that regulation a bit further while we’re at it….

We all know that really fucking shit law starts with the best of intentions, don’t pretend that historically anything else has been the rule when it comes to policy by governments seeking control.

Yes, lets think of the children when they open the Sun every day and see a naked woman. Lets think of the children when all those moral newspapers flog sex chat lines to grasp a bit of dirty money.

“The protection of minors from perverts is one of the few areas of our lives that a Big government approach is needed. ”

TIMBER…………………..

Another libertarian is cut down.

On the thread about big govt and snow shaterface said this…….

“Maybe those employed snooping on citizens should only be brought in when absolutely necessary rather than attempt to justify their jobs by finding new areas of our lives to stick their beaks in?”

Ho, ho ,ho.

@12: “Fact is the Tory party is not the party of freedom. Never has been, and never will be. They are the party of the busy body, the net curtain twitcher, the old Maid cycling to church before sticking her long beaky nose into other people business.”

C’mon. Just where does that put Blunkett who was so often popping up to go on about searching out collectors of child porn on the web before he felt impelled to resign as Home Secretary because of some unfortunate mix-up about a Home Office permit for his mistress’s nanny?

I thought the Tories were AGAINST big government?

They’re not for or against anything other than what benefits them at any given point, selling weapons to Iraq one month, invading it the next, it’s all the same to them, there’s no principle involved.

17 But the labour party and its supporters don’t pretend that they are for small govt. They have no problem with idea of govt doing things.

The tories and their trolls on the other hand are always on here lecturing about libertarianism and other such nonsense.

18

Dam right!

‘On the thread about big govt and snow shaterface said this…….

“Maybe those employed snooping on citizens should only be brought in when absolutely necessary rather than attempt to justify their jobs by finding new areas of our lives to stick their beaks in?”

Yes I did.

Your point being?

Seriously, what the fuck..? Have I changed my opinion on either censorship or privacy one iota? Have I ever onced called for greater state powers?

The Tories claim to be for small government while increasing state control; New Labour don’t even try to hide it. It’s pretty obvious I identify with neither.

Sally, you’re pathetic. A libertarian recognises the need for big government in certain situations, but believes that central interference in the lives of individuals should be kept to a minimum The protection of the public from harm is one of those areas where the State must take action. Any who deny this are not libertarian, but nihilists, ie, extreme Left. Furthermore. unlike the sainted Blair, I don’t need to make things up. When one is well into the 7th decile, one has plenty of experiences to draw on. Now answer my point instead of engaging in displacement activity.
Lee. Of course I demure at the naivity dig, but I agree with much of what follows. However the rest of your post reduces to “I know you’re broadly on the right track, but what can we do? Your comments on the ease of access to unsuitable material was something, in a fumbling way, that Mary Whitehouse brought attention to. Her remedies were unworkable, but her instincts were right in that we now know of the deleterious effect that ponographic and violent media have on society.
I do not think that using the Law as social engineering ever works. The foxhunting bill has resulted in chief constables publicly stating that they’ve got more important things to do , and more people follow the hunt than ever before. ( I don’t like fox hunting, I just think that it is not a fit subject for legislation.)
The public perception of such social activities moves cyclicly.. Hogarthian excesses were much frowned upon in Victorian times. We now laugh at Victorian rectitude and laugh at the hypocrisy of someVictorians, citing those examples as reason for demolishing the whole edifice. I’m old enough to remember my working class grand parents, born in the late 19th Century, who were very proper in all they did. They were not unusual in their community. In all cases, there were very brave and determined men and women who stuck to their ideals and changed public opinion through example and persuasion. I would not be at all surprised if in 25 years time we went back to social conduct which was far more respectful of the person and more sensitive to emotional pressures than today.

At first, I couldn’t believe my eyes when I read this in that bastion of Conservative principles:

“Celebrity Big Brother star Heidi Fleiss is hiding a secret heartbreak after her brother Jason drowned just days before she entered the reality TV show. Jason was swept out to sea by a strong current while swimming on holiday in Hawaii on December 28. Devastated Heidi was on the brink of pulling out of the Channel 4 programme after getting the tragic news – two days before her 44th birthday.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1242410/Heidi-Fleisss-secret-heartache-drowning-death-brother-days-entering-Celebrity-Big-Brother-house.html#ixzz0cL7ALESw

Could that be the very same Heidi Fleiss as in this Wiki entry?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heidi_Fleiss

If so, how does the hugely successful manager of a prostitution ring serving Hollywood qualify as a celebrity for Big Brother on Channel 4? What sort of message does that send out about business role models to teens or am I missing something?

21 “Your point being? ”

Well, if you can’t understand basic hypocrisy , I can’t help you,

22 “Sally, you’re pathetic. A libertarian recognises the need for big government in certain situations,”

Oh dear, oh dear, you obviously have not met some of the so called libertarians who come on here.

As I have always said, 99% of libertarians are FAKE, and the ones that are not are insane. You tories are all for small govt when it benefits your own interests, but are quite happy with big govt when that also benefits your interests.

Which is why the bastions of the tory party, the farmers are all for small govt and lower taxes in the good times, but always want govt bail out when things go wrong.

Sally. “Oh dear, oh dear, you obviously have not met some of the so called libertarians who come on here.” my point exactly
“Well, if you can’t understand basic hypocrisy , I can’t help you,” Regard the beam in your own eye before commenting on the mote in the eye of others.

“Which is why the bastions of the tory party, the farmers are all for small govt and lower taxes in the good times, but always want govt bail out when things go wrong.”
So unlike the Unions.

Sally you are bigoted, boring and unable to construct a decent argument, being content to shout slogans through a megaphone. Goodnight.

“Sally you are bigoted, boring and unable to construct a decent argument, being content to shout slogans through a megaphone. Goodnight.”

Go on then, fuck off. You won’t be missed. Twat.

@24: “As I have always said, 99% of libertarians are FAKE, and the ones that are not are insane.”

JS Mill is usually taken as a leading apostle of Libertarianism with this benchmark:

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
[On Liberty 1859]
http://www.utilitarianism.com/ol/one.html

Now it certainly isn’t clear to me as why I should frame JS Mill as either a “fake” or insane.

The benchmark he proposed for Liberty is to be preferred to alternatives, as Isaiah Berlin argued in his essay: Two Concepts of Liberty (1958):
http://www.nyu.edu/projects/nissenbaum/papers/twoconcepts.pdf

If Mill were around now, would he actually hold the views his 19th century writings make it appear he holds?

Because you can look at historical quotes for Abe Lincoln’s racism, HG Wells’ pro-eugenics stance, and all kinds of amazing stuff from Churchill. But if they were around in 2010 they wouldn’t be saying that.

So you can excuse me for thinking that Mill wouldn’t be a right-wing troll if he were still alive, in fact he would disown the fuckwits who invoke him.

But if that’s the best the LURPAK can do, Brown, Camoron and Clegg can sleep easy in their beds.

If so, how does the hugely successful manager of a prostitution ring serving Hollywood qualify as a celebrity for Big Brother on Channel 4?

Well, ISTM she’s a bit more ‘qualified’ as a ‘celebrity’ than someone who was merely penetrated by a Rolling Stone.

@28: “If Mill were around now, would he actually hold the views his 19th century writings make it appear he holds?”

You’ve not actually explained what it is about JS Mill’s benchmark that makes it no longer appropriate for the current century. Besides, Isaiah Berlin’s essay dates from 1958.

Rocket scientists are still using Newtonian mechanics to calculate the trajectory of rockets to put satellites into to orbit. So what? Mere antiquity is not a valid objection to a scientific theory, a moral principle or to logical.mathematical analysis. Or, presumably, to religions or to Darwin’s theory of evolution.

But as far as I know , and I maybe wrong , but JS Mill was never put into govt and never put into practice his views.

So he was just another man with a theory. Fine, but that does not amount to a row of beans.

I’m sorry, but …what the fuck is this *picture* about. It’s got a fully-grown woman looking a bit ashamed. What has that got to do with premature sexualisation, or do we automatically associate ‘too much sex’ with ‘women looking ashamed’?

That’s does not matter Laurie, it is all about whether it offends Call me Dave and his moral mates. You see that is the standard for everything, does it effect Call me Dave and his friends.

That is how they intend to govern. Will it effect call me Dav,e and his band of rich friends.

‘Well, if you can’t understand basic hypocrisy , I can’t help you,’

Maybe you should give us YOUR definition of hypocrisy because it seems to differ from the one we have here on Earth.

You can tell us what colour the sky is in your world too.

@32: “But as far as I know , and I maybe wrong , but JS Mill was never put into govt and never put into practice his views. So he was just another man with a theory. Fine, but that does not amount to a row of beans.”

C’mon. Mill, who was a Liberal MP, was proposing a dividing line between where it was appropriate to curb by legislation personal freedom to act and where it was not.

The whole case against public laws banning homosexuality between consenting adults derives from his proposed dividing line between self-regarding and other-regarding actions. Edmund Burke with his precept: Liberty, too, must be limited to be possessed, was also saying something significant but that lacked the precision of Mill and was therefore much less practicable.

The case for legislation limiting access to addictive drugs is that drug addiction does have significant social (other-regarding) consequences – such as costs to the NHS for treatment or because some drugs render addicts more likely to commit violent crimes or because addicts are apt to become unemployable and dependent on state benefits.

The case for laws against abuse of children, regardless of their consent, is because children are deemed incapable of making rational decisions in those circumstances.

Far from not amounting to a row of beans, Mill’s principle is taken very seriously by many legislators and jurists.

Fine, so he was a very active and influential MP.

But my point still stands just because he said it, does not make it so.

“But my point still stands just because he said it, does not make it so.”

Absolutely so – and Mill certainly wasn’t given to arguing by authority. I was just giving him the usual academic credit for setting out what has become a very clear and pervasive working principle for deciding the appropriate boundaries for personal liberty in what we are apt to call a “free (or liberal) society”. Some put it more bluntly – “my liberty to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose” – but the principle there is Mill’s.

Mill has had much influence on the way we think nowadays about government. He worried about the potential excesses of populist democracy, hence his preference for “representative government”.

Did anyone see the pictures in the Sunday Times this week about those toddler beauty pageants from Bible belt US? Man! They were frightening.

At least we have good old fashioned moralist organs in this country; like the Daily Express and its editor.

Oh.

Also, Shatterface – I have never made a statement against pornography. I have written on this site several times about my role in campaigning *against* the ban on ‘extreme’ pornography, but that’s all.

Get your feminist stereotypes right, mate.

“I have never made a statement against pornography”

I’m sure that the Japanese will be greatly relieved to learn that.

“Japan is currently the largest pornographic producer in the world, producing more pornography than the United States”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornography_in_Japan

Japan has a long historic tradition of producing hugely graphic pornographic art but has a low crime rate compared with other G7 countries. It’s the regular example of why pornographic art isn’t necessarily associated with pervasive violent sex crime.

In order to understand where we are, we need to know how we got here.

“The Tory leader, who has a five-year-old daughter and a three-year-old son”

More evidence of the Dara O’Briain principle on authority from parenthood…

For job related reasons, in the 1990s I used to closely follow press reports of developments in Japan’s booming electronics industry.

Now the Japanese absolutely love new and innovative electronic gizmos. At the time, the business press carried verging on daily news reports of Japanese companies launching some innovative gizmo which had some novel feature “for the first time.”

Mobile phones started to appear on the market in Japan in the early 1990s. Naturally, every young Japanese had to have a mobile as soon as they could afford one. But, to start with, the phones were hugely expensive and beyond the ordinary means of trendy young girl teens who felt they just had to have one to keep up with their peer groups. Reports started to appear in the Japanese foreign language press about girls at school seeking out affluent patrons for sessions of what was euphemistically called “compensated dating” – I joke not – to earn the wherewithall to buy a mobile phone.

What was instructive was the tone of the reporting. There was much tut-tutting about this and about what the younger generation were coming to but not the moralising hysteria or apopelctic outrage, with calls for the government to do something futile, that we would expect from the tabloids in Britain. I visited Japan several times in the 1980s but I’ve never lived there and can only speculate about Japan’s national psyche. What I do know is that there is a long historic tradition of variations on “compensated dating” going back many centuries.

The Tale of Genji, is a highly esteemed part of classical Japanese literature which has inspired much screen art over the centuries. It is a long story about courtly concubines and liaisons that was written in the early 11th century. Every pupil at school would come to know about it.
http://www.taleofgenji.org/summary.html