Take a good look. These are the smug, self-satisfied pricks who think that being MPs gives them the right to bully the rest of us, to ignore the opinions and feelings of the vast majority of the population, and force us to obey them.
Commit their faces to memory. One day you may meet one of them in the street. They deserve a good smacking, and they won't be MPs for ever. And as we all know, a person's likely to be arrested if they try to defend themselves or retaliate against unprovoked attack …
These and other MPs - 111 in all, mostly Labour (no surprise there, then) - attempted to hijack the Children and Young Persons Bill yesterday. Although this bill is about children in care, the rebel MPS tried to introduce an amendment banning parents from smacking their own children.
The facts that all previous attempts to introduce such a law have been rejected, and that a recent poll reveals that seven out of ten people believe parents should smack their children, didn't influence the rebels one bit. After all, they're MPs, so they know best. They were even willing to risk a battle with Gordon Brown by demanding a free vote on the issue when the Bill came before the Commons, and threatened that they will withdraw their support for the Government if ministers do not back down.
The opinion poll showed that the great majority of parents do smack their children and would oppose a law banning physical punishment. The last attempt to ban smacking was in 2004, when although 49 Labour MPs rebelled, the ban was seen off with the support of the Conservatives.
On this occasion the amendment was tabled by Kevin Barron, Labour chairman of the all-party Commons Health Committee, Tory MP John Bercow, Liberal Democrat Annette Brooke, Elfyn Llwyd from Plaid Cymru, and Richard Taylor who sits as an independent, but fortunately the move was defeated not by a vote but by parliamentary procedure. Under a tightly-drawn timetable, MPs had just four hours for the report stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill, but the time was taken up with discussion on long-term residential placements and fostering issues, leaving no time for a debate on smacking.
Mr Barron said "Frankly, we are baffled by the hesitation so far about giving a free vote on what is so clearly a conscience issue," which is a piece of extraordinary hypocrisy - the people of Britain have already had a free vote, and voted 7 to 3 in favour of smacking children, but apparently that doesn't count! The only thing that counts is what Kevin "I know best" Barron thinks. But of course the people who voted were just ordinary oiks like you and me, far too stupid to have a proper conscience, let alone understand the issues and make judgements about what is best for our own children. No, that's what we have MPs for.
With a rare flash of honesty, even Kevin Barron admits that the attempt was a hijack: "It was always a long shot because the Bill was not about the punishment of children, it was about the protection of children," he said.
Sir William Utting, spokesman for the Children are Unbeatable Alliance, is at least honest about his determination to ride rough-shod over the rights and opinions of the public. He said "This is one of those principled reforms on which politicians must make a stand whatever the pollsters might say". But then William Utting is a senior social worker, not a politician. He doesn't understand the value of a bare-faced lie.
Utting went on "It is about being serious about equality and about the human rights of the child. The law must send the clear message that hitting children is as unacceptable as hitting anyone else." Jolly good. Will the same law send a clear message to children that they have to behave as well as adults? Or aren't we as serious about duties as we are about rights? (Oh, and in case anyone writes in and says that children can't be expected to understand their duties, that's what we smack them for, you prat. That's one thing they can understand).
Another spokesperson for the Children Are Unbeatable! Alliance, one Tony Samphier, said "Ministers … should feel thoroughly ashamed and the hurt that every child feels when being legally assaulted will weigh heavily on their consciences."
The GOS suggests that it is Tony Samphier who should be feeling ashamed, ashamed at talking such rubbish. The GOS was "legally assaulted" by his father many times in his youth. Yes, it hurt. But my goodness, didn't it make him behave himself! And never once does he remember feeling resentful about it. And he was then, and still is, very fond of his father. It was a normal family thing then, and it should be still. The fact that it is no longer normal in many households is largely responsible for the crowds of feral youngsters who roam our streets in packs, stealing, abusing and assaulting. What does Tony Samphier think about the rights of their victims?
Tell you what - there's one thing that's guaranteed. If ever a smacking ban came into force, I'll bet you any money there'll be clauses in it to give exemption to ethnic minorities, for whom corporal punishment is part of their culture and belief system. No, it'll just apply to ordinary English people, because we're the easy target. The rest of the population will be allowed to carry on beating girls with sticks, ritually flagellating adolescent boys, mutilating children's sexual organs, forcing them to marry each other against their will and raping them if they try to disobey.
But just let Mrs.Beryl Huggins of Ipswich smack her son's legs when he acts up in Asda one Saturday morning …
Grumpy readers will find the website of the Children Are Unbeatable Alliance … erm … shall we say, "interesting"?
But beware - like all left wing bullies, their attachment to the truth is conveniently flexible. For instance, they say at the foot of the home page "On Wednesday 8 October, at Report Stage of the Children and Young Persons Bill in the House of Commons, there will be a vote on ending the legal approval of hitting children", which was a lie - there was no such vote, and given the government's understanding of, and willingness to use, parliamentary procedure, there was probably never going to be.
If that's how untruthful they can be about a comparatively obvious and simple issue, imagine how mendacious they'll get on subtler issues, like … oh, let's see now … whether it benefits children to be smacked occasionally?
either on this site or on the World Wide Web.
Copyright © 2008 The GOS
This site created and maintained by PlainSite