« Knife Crime Survey | Main | London Living Wage Campaign: Barclays Sets The Pace »

July 28, 2008

Anthony Browne, Moral & Intellectual Giant

From Daily Mail Fantasy Island:

"If people don’t learn the difference between right and wrong, it is not just that they become anti-social. They don’t learn the fundamental lesson that there is only one person responsible for what they do — and that is themselves. Nothing is wrong, and nothing is anyone’s fault; it is always someone else’s. Don’t blame me for what I do; it’s society’s fault.

As Cameron pointed out, we talk about people being ‘at risk of obesity’ instead of people who eat too much and don’t do enough exercise. Obesity, alcohol abuse and drug addiction are talked of as external events rather than consequences of people’s actions.

Obviously, there are always external factors which have a big influence. People from difficult backgrounds definitely have higher hurdles to jump over, and need help. But for all of us, whatever our background, what we do is ultimately up to us.

This Left-wing moral neutrality comes from the best of intentions — wanting to sympathise with victims and other vulnerable people. If they do something anti-social, it is because anti-social things have been done to them — they are not at fault. And if you can’t judge someone for their actions, there can’t really be a right or wrong thing to do."

I weep before this edifice of patronising, self-serving, intellectually dishonest, straw man-abusing, willfully sub-Gumby arrogance. But let's take the pillock at his word. If and when this over-inflated charlatan goes "pop" in some embarrassingly public way, Mayor Johnson will have only himself to blame.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451ef7969e200e553bdfb3f8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Anthony Browne, Moral & Intellectual Giant:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

You couldn't add a few reasons WHY it's such a pile of self-serving poo, could you ? Or is it a question of 'if you have to ask, you'll never understand ?'.

Don't worry, Laban, I'm getting round to that.

Could you help the slower of us out by pointing more precisely to the strawman and the dishonesty in those remarks?

Hi cjcjc. Sorry, but if you're that slow you're probably beyond help!

I think it's because anyone with half a brain knows that people make their own decisions in the context of the society and environment and economy in which they live. For instance, crime reduces as the economy rises and vice versa - this is indisputable.

The strawman comes in pretending that the 'Left' (itself an imaginary construct in this context) deny that people take their own decisions. The dishonesty comes in denying indisputable facts such as the one quoted above.

Is this at a suitable level, or have I pitched it a bit high?

"For instance, crime reduces as the economy rises and vice versa - this is indisputable."

"The dishonesty comes in denying indisputable facts such as the one quoted above"

Hence the steadily falling crime rates during the economic boom of the Fifties and Sixties ?

"Hence the steadily falling crime rates during the economic boom of the Fifties and Sixties ?"

What boom? More pertinently, why are the 1950s/60s more relevant than the 1980s/90s/2000s, when the current structures of society and economy were established? It's a very different world out there now.

What I'm talking about is the 80% of the reduction in crime the Home Office privately (via a leaked PDF a couple of years ago I've got a copy of) ascribed to economic factors, along with a prediction that a future recession would see a rise in crime. Hence the balloon in crime coinciding with the economic downturn in the early 90s, hence the reducing crime rates since 1994. It's not the *only* factor, of course (the population is a lot more docile than in the 1980s and there are more policemen), and it doesn't affect all crimes equally, but it's definitely there.

Another thing - if his policy director claims it's only people's personal decisions that matter, what does this mean for Boris' otherwise quite sensible plans to 'design out' crime and anti-social behaviour when designing public spaces? Surely it would make no difference?

"Don't worry, Laban, I'm getting round to that."

Are you?!

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.