Saturday, November 22, 2008

Jacqui Smith Exposed

Click here to listen to deputy head nanny, Jacqui Smith, being interviewed on the BBC, in which she debates her new plans with a spokeswoman from the English Collective of Prostitutes. Which one do you think makes the most sense?

11 comments:

The Dapper Swindler said...

Someone should really tell her that repeating a point doesn't make it more valid.

Heretic said...

Several people have told me that this link wasn't working before. It is fixed now. My apologies.

Miss Ondrya said...

Typical cultural marxist. The fact that women are sometimes exploited is unfair, and to redress this injustice she creates a legal minefield for men, which is also unfair. In her mind the unfairness has now been redistributed over both sexes. That it's unfair to the individuals doesn't come into it, because she thinks in classes.

Anonymous said...

Heads up, Heretic

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/nov/23/ofsted-child-abuse

Anonymous said...

Nice to hear a bbc interviewer actually attempting to do his job once once and not falling too mcuh for feminist nonsense.

Shame he didn't ask the government why they never mention female users of prostitutes or male prostitutes, not to mention the huge number of men trafficked for all sort of jobs.

Heretic said...

Anon,
Thanks for the link. I appreciate it.

Liesel Libertarian said...

Smith is in a bit of hot water now with this whole Green saga, perhaps. And maybe Hag Hartman, too. This will either end very well or very, very badly for the British people, what's left if them.

WE're headed in the same direction on this side of the pond now.

BrusselsLout said...

Whichever way this argument is viewed, it always seems to fall on the side of wimmin. On the one hand, this new legislation is to protect those women who are trafficked and exploited. But on the other hand, it will hit hard those poor women who have no way of earning a living than to take up coal mining or garbage disposal (and heaven forbid that).

We've heard nothing about that forgotten group of people: the paying clients. These are those shadowy demons referred to by Smith as "men" with her characteristic feminist sneer.

I agree with the feeling here that this is a move in the direction. But I still found it VERY disappointing.

And Smith, by the way, is a LIGHTWEIGHT. I can see how she got her job. Somebody in some meeting some time ago shouted out "it's time we had a woman for a home secretary!". And Gordon Brown sheepishly agreed.

Heretic said...

Check this out. The links are very well worth pursuing.

Anonymous said...

I see nothing wrong in prostitution indeed I think it is a good thing. I don't have any puritanical sexual hang ups. I would not want any woman who is not willing. If she is willing for a price then that's OK. At least a person gets something for their money. Try marriage if you fancy spending money for nothing.

T. AKA Ricky Raw said...

This law looks like a disaster waiting to happen.