Friday, 14 June 2013

She unleashed a politically correct monster

On 9 July 2008, Esther Rantzen's article, I Launched Childline To Protect The Most Vulnerable - But Unleashed A Politically Correct Monster was published by The Daily Mail.

This, in part, is what she said:
"Winning is against the rules for many children these days; even competing has become a sin. I have a godson, one of three brothers who until recently attended their local state primary school in Berkshire. They were not permitted to play football there. In fact, they were forbidden to play any competitive sports.  
The head teacher takes the view that it is morally wrong for children to experience losing... The school didn't just over-protect the children, they protected the staff as well, to a lunatic extent. 
One day my friend was rung up and asked to come to the school urgently with a pair of tweezers… When he arrived, he found one of his sons had a splinter in his finger. None of the school staff was allowed to remove it because that would be an 'invasive operation'. My friend had brought the tweezers and took the splinter out in a few seconds. 
After that, exasperated, he moved his sons to a different (private) school.
Last Friday, I had the pleasure of watching the boys enjoying the drama and suspense of sports day at their new school. The whole event was deeply politically incorrect. There were plenty of races, and loads of winners. Since some of the races were in relays, every child ended up with a victory badge of some kind, but there was no doubt that the children who had the focus, determination and co-ordination to hurl themselves fearlessly to the winning line won more badges, and walked tall. 
'Worse' was to come. I noticed one small girl crumpled in tears when she was told that she'd been disqualified for holding her potato on to her spoon with her thumb while she ran. Her teacher cuddled her, and a smile broke through the sobs. Cuddling a pupil! WHAT WOULD THE THOUGHT POLICE HAVE SAID?…
Why should this kind of common sense be a privilege only available to children whose parents can afford private education?… 
To an extent, I blame myself for this rubbish. By revealing the extent of child abuse in the BBC TV programme Childwatch in the eighties, I was part of the revolution in child protection which created these insidious jobsworths. All we intended to do was alert viewers to the truth - that most child abuse happens within the family home. And that there are ruthless, clever paedophiles who are sexually attracted to children and will worm their way into any profession that brings them into contact with them. But I had no idea the result would be senseless over-protection which pretends to see danger where there is none.
What is the real risk in taking out a child's splinter?... Why deprive a child of the exhilaration of winning?… I never for a moment imagined we would ever reach this insane state of affairs… 
Unless we revise this hysterical attitude that every child should be treated like a china doll who must not be touched by adults, the bitter irony is that our most vulnerable children will pay a tragic price... 
Debating these issues on Radio 4's Today programme, John Humphrys asked me: 'Can you not see that one side effect of the setting up of Childline has been this over-reaction?'
Yes, John, now I can... I think we all need to rethink our attitudes.”
Correction, Esther. The PC Crowd, of which you have been such a proud and over-active member down the years, needs to “rethink its attitudes”. As for the rest of us, our attitudes were never the same as yours.

For such an attitude rethink as you have, ostentatiously, demonstrated here, I should think the rest of your Orwellian crew need the kind of frightener put into them that you had put into you just recently.

In her Daily Mail essay, Rantzen tells us that:
"The think-tank Civitas last week produced a report blaming our checks for criminal records for poisoning relationships between adults and children."
They sure did. On 26 June 2008, Civitas, the 'Institute for Civil Society,' released the following statement:
"Next year one quarter of the population of Great Britain will require vetting if they need to have face to face contact with children. Voluntary work is virtually dead and people are afraid to help a lost or hurt child they might meet on the street. 
Childline and the NSPCC have tried to make children suspicious of their parents.
You have helped bring about the Orwellian nightmare in which men fear young women and children. The dramatic escalation of child protection measures has succeeded in poisoning the relationship between the generations and creating an atmosphere of suspicion that actually increases the risks to children…
In Licensed to Hug Frank Furedi, Professor of Sociology at the University of Kent, argues that children need to have contact with a range of adult members of the community for their education and socialisation, but 'this form of collaboration, which has traditionally underpinned intergenerational relationships, is now threatened by a regime that insists that adult/child encounters must be mediated through a security check'. The scope of child protection has become immense…
The passage of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006… has led to the creation of the Independent Safeguarding Authority which, when it is rolled out in October 2009, will require CRB checks of 11.3 million people - over one quarter of the adult population of England.
Whereas adults would once routinely have rebuked children who were misbehaving, or helped children in distress, they now think twice about the consequences of interacting with other people's children…
In an atmosphere of mistrust, in which adults suspect other adults and children are taught to suspect anyone other than their parents, there is a feeling that it is best not to become involved.
At the inquest of a two-year-old girl who had wandered into a pond and drowned, a man who had driven past and saw her obviously lost said that he did not go to help 'because I thought someone would see me and think I was trying to abduct her'.
One of the respondents to a survey… explained the problems her partner experiences when he takes their two-year-old son swimming: 'The mothers in the cafe he was waiting in were giving him filthy looks... This happens whenever he goes out with our son on his own, especially if he takes him into a joint changing/feeding room’...
As Furedi says: 'We should question whether there is anything healthy in a response where communities look at childrens’ own fathers with suspicion, but would baulk at helping a lost child find their way home'.
Instead of creating an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, Licensed to Hug suggests that we need to 'halt the juggernaut of regulation’.”
On 21 December 1991, The Independent said this:
"She has been called vulgar, mawkish, exploitative, smug and self- serving; ruthless, spiteful, ambitious, aggressive, power-mad. In the Eighties she was frequently likened to Mrs. Thatcher, a comparison she claimed she was proud to accept, adding however that Mrs T identified with success and she with victims.
After winning this week's libel case against a newspaper that claimed she had protected a known paedophile because he provided inside information for her programme, she said her critics had the right to call her old, ugly and untalented, 'but if you tell me that I put children in danger, then I have to go to court.'
Few would dispute that Esther Rantzen is the most powerful woman on television. That alone explains why her survival and the 18-year reign of her programme, That's Life, should arouse strong passions. How did she reach and maintain that eminence?"
In the Add Your Comments section, underneath Rantzen’s Daily Mail article, Bob from St Albans said this:
"This do-gooding Christian lady admits she gave birth to a child protection machine which turned into a monster and now she's saying sorry. Bit late perhaps?"
There is just one thing wrong with the above statement. Esther Rantzen is not a Christian.

She's a Jew.

'How did she reach and maintain that eminence?'

She's a Jew.

On 29 September 2012, Rantzen confessed thus in The Daily Mail:

"I feel that we in television, in his world, in some way colluded with him as a child abuser. We colluded with Jimmy Savile as a child abuser...
We all blocked our ears. There was gossip, there were rumours. 
We made him into the Jimmy Savile who was untouchable, who nobody could criticise. He was a sort of god-like figure. Everybody knew of the good that Jimmy did and what he did for children. And these children were powerless."
Unblock your ears, you sheeple! You 'powerless' types might just hear something the 'untouchables' don't want you to hear. Go on, turn over a few stones! You might find find the odd Jewish celeb colluding with a 'god-like' paedophile underneath!

Those whom 'nobody' can 'criticise?'

Now who might they be, we wonder?

No comments:

Post a Comment