Plight of children 2

There are only going to be a few of these personal requests.

In the first, this blog asked people in Shipley to vote for Philip Davies, Conservative and gave reasons why.  In this second request, whatever constituents in Gravesham do, it’s absolutely necessary that they do not elect the pornographer:

The 38-year-old wants to give free film-making lessons to pupils in the Kent seat she hopes to win from the Tories.

Let’s get that right again – Anna Arrowsmith, Lib Dem, is a pornographer [according to the Mail] whom the Lib Dems preselected?  They selected her, knowing she was doing this?  And knowing she intends showing children how to do it?

Has the world cracked?  Right, here are the supposed candidates:

Liberal Democrat Anna Arrowsmith
UKIP Geoffrey Clark
Green Richard Crawford
Independent Alice Dartnell
Conservative Adam Holloway
Labour Kathryn Smith
English Democrats Steve Uncles

I’ve checked out Adam Holloway and he is a Green Chipper, a Cameronite insider so he can’t be voted for.  Don’t know much about Alice Dartnell.  Here’s her voting record.  Steve Uncles is well known for the English Democrats.  Please vote for:

ANYONE BUT THE [ALLEGED] PORNOGRAPHER ARROWSMITH.

11 comments for “Plight of children 2

  1. May 3, 2010 at 09:10

    Why? At least they would end up with a career. There is going to be few of them left when we are all EU drones.

    Being trained as a filmmaker doesn’t mean they will have to film porn. The principles are the same for filming wildlife (animal porn), documentaries (real life porn), movies (soft porn), etc.

    At least she has life experience.

    I would be saying the opposite. Vote for her. She will bring a bit of much needed change to politics instead of the stodgy others, possibly excluding Alice who is an independent. How can you ever suggest voting for *spit* Labour or even that watermelon Richard.

  2. May 3, 2010 at 09:29

    And that’s why what is currently happening with children and increasing will not be stopped – people refusing to take responsibility for it or even recognize a problem despite all the evidence for it.

    People just don’t want to see, do they?

    You’d seriously be happy for a pornographer to come near your children?

  3. May 3, 2010 at 09:33

    That statement does not make sense.

    Yes. I would. One of them has met a politician and didn’t emerge as lying scum.

  4. May 3, 2010 at 10:54

    Astounding – the reply makes no sense. What has lying scum to do with a known pornographic film maker teaching kids to make films? Let alone the fact that a major political party selected her as a worthy candidate for office, precisely at a time when the society’s falling apart, values are plummeting [e.g. parliament] and where the sexualizing and infantilizing of society is one of the main issues facing us today?

    As I said above: people refusing to take responsibility for it or even recognize a problem despite all the evidence for it.

    People just don’t want to see, do they?

  5. May 3, 2010 at 11:51

    OK.

    1) Someone with a perfectly legal job is going to train others to perform that, and similar, jobs. Are you be happy for a MI6 operative to train someone in assasination or a soldier to train someone to shoot someone or someone to develop deadly strains of bacteria aimed at killing people. All are legitimate jobs.

    2) A major party picked her because she was a nice looking successful businesswomen and that ticked three boxes on the form. Only in the moralistic world we have does it make any difference what job she has. In fact killers, criminals and gangsters are OK to elect but not someone who provides entertainment you don’t like.

    3) Society’s values are plummeting. Yet you would suggest we elect the lying thieving scum that took us to this situation rather than an honest up front business woman who can balance her books. That’s going to help us in the current situation isn’t it.

    4) People do see. it’s just they don’t think it is that important compared to other issues.

    5) If all the other candidates were squeeky clean then she wouldn’t get a look in because of the moralistic society we have. Sadly that moralistic society accepts criminals over law abiding citizens. It is fighting the wrong causes.

  6. May 3, 2010 at 12:07

    You’re bringing a separate issue in, as lefties do, as a false counterpoint to what the argument was.

    The argument was that people of the moral level of a pornographer should not be PPCs, let alone allowed to go near children and show them how to do what they do, which is what she plans.

    That a society could accept this shows the plummeting values.

    To come in with a strawman “Yet you would suggest we elect the lying thieving scum” is palpably false. Where? Where did I suggest that? Quote me on it.

    It has absolutely nothing to do with the original argument.

    The original argument was that this woman should not be preselected and that people should be up in arms that she was. The fact that people aren’t is a commentary on society.

    One thing you said did make sense though: “People do see. it’s just they don’t think it is that important compared to other issues.”

    Precisely. My case rests.

  7. May 3, 2010 at 20:07

    We are not all right wing nuts you know.

    I understood what you were saying and I disagreed.

    I’m saying that someone who is not breaking the laws is acceptable as a PPC and your moral objections are just your views.

    She will not be taking them to her porn studio to do filming. She will be teaching them how to film. What they do with that is up to them and don’t forget they already have sex education so the cat is out of the bag.

    Values have plummeted for a long time now. There is more to society than sex. How about truth and justice? What about the difference between right and wrong when going through life. What someone does for a legal living trumps what criminals do yet you are supporting people who will kill millions if they get their way in the global warming/cooling farce.

    The part about scum as you now was refering to career politicians rather than someone with real world experience. I bet she knows that income can’t be 75% of outgoings for too long before there is meltdown and I didn’t say you said it.

    The fact is that society has moved on. You need to catch up and there is more important issues in this country than someone who is doing a job you don’t like.

    I do believe society will head back towards your views. As Christianity is repressed it will go underground and become stronger. Unless of course it is wiped out by Islam. Regardless her job will become illegal and the only thing you will see of a woman is her eyes.

    Hope that makes you happy. I’ll not be.

  8. May 3, 2010 at 23:26

    I don’t really see why we have to bring right wing/left wing split into this, it is totally irrelevant.

  9. May 4, 2010 at 10:48

    hey. I thought you had rested your case. No new evidence is allowed.

    Anyway, I did say that it would make a comeback and the only way it could comeback is if it has moved away.

    We could do with a good base of basic morals. particularly the eye for an eye bit. I like that.

Comments are closed.