Tuesday, October 21, 2014
Child Poverty Is An Election Issue - Child Sex Not So Much
There's nothing more dispiriting to the human soul than watching politicians descend from their ivory towers once every few years to put their faux concern for people on public display in hope of securing a vote or two at election time.
Career politicians and bureaucrats who wouldn't be seen dead with a supermarket shelf stacker or an oil splattered mechanic, suddenly start pretending they have empathy for ordinary people.
Multi-millionaire 'progressives' start talking about ending income inequality and assisting social mobility at five thousand pounds per plate fund raising dinners.
With the aid of the government-media complex the political class create images of poverty, hunger and despair to give themselves a reason to put forward solutions they know they won't implement. Where there is actual poverty, hunger and despair they will offer nothing but promises, for the simple reason that a prosperous, upwardly mobile working class robs them of their reason to interfere.
Politicians need poverty, they love talking about poverty, they wallow in it, its their element. They would have little reason to exist in their present form if the majority of the people were prosperous and financially independent of government.
The truth is that outside of election times the political class are self serving, agenda driven and couldn't care less about the lives of their constituents. They do the absolute minimum that is required, both actually and rhetorically, to keep them on board and secure their votes.
One of the most potent issues for raising the emotional temperature is child poverty, no human being with an iota of decency wants to see a child suffer hunger and despair.
Not all of the political class, nor their armies of bureaucrats are decent human beings despite the fact that they jump on the child poverty bandwagon at election times for vote gathering purposes.
When one compares the election time rhetoric with the behavior of Great Britain's political class, the whole shameful edifice of child welfare comes crashing down under the weight of their deceit and lies.
Using a flaw in the electoral system, the leader of the ridiculous Liberal Democrat party, Nick Clegg, is also Great Britain's Deputy Prime Minister. His concern for the welfare of children resulted in the formation of the Child Poverty and Social Mobility Commission, this put into law the mandatory monitoring of child poverty and set a target for the elimination of child poverty by the year 2020.
He further demonstrated his concern for child welfare by mandating that every child must have a free school meal regardless of means. Its all lies of course and designed to enhance his public image and his burnish child care credentials.
While Clegg was setting targets and handing out school dinners he was covering up the fact that one if the icons of the Liberal movement was a rampant paedophile who abused children on an industrial scale. When he was finally forced to admit knowledge of Cyril Smiths depraved crimes he refused to instigate an inquiry.
He also covered up the fact that he knew one of his MP's, Mike Hancock, was having an inappropriate relationship with young special needs constituent who went to him for help.
(Lib Dem paedophile stories here, here and here)
The Labour Party try to make child poverty their exclusive territory, their usurping of the moral high ground is nauseating when their unseen attitude to children is made public.
While they champion increasing the minimum wage, increasing child welfare benefits and raising children out of poverty altogether by 2020, they also promote legalising sex between adults and children under the radar.
The infamous trio of Harriet Harman, Jack Dromey and Patricia Hewitt had common cause with the Paedophile Information Exchange to legalise sex between adults and children on the back of legislation to legalise homosexuality.
While they pull on the emotional heart strings regarding the existence of child poverty and appearing to be dedicated to its eradication, Labour administrations were ignoring the grooming, rape and vile sexual abuse of under age white girls by Muslim paedophile gangs in Rotherham, Rochdale and a host of other cities in England.
In Rotherham, the head of children's services in the Labour administration removed two children from their loving foster parents because their cultural needs may not be met but ignored the rape and sexual abuse of some fourteen hundred (1,400) under age white girls at the same time.
In these blighted towns, Labour administrations ensured children were entitled to a free school dinner but not entitled to protection from rape.
David Cameron's Conservative Party also puts the welfare of children high on their agenda at election times but cover up the hideous activities of the child abusers in their midst at the same time.
Cameron held out as long as he could not to hold an inquiry into historic child sex abuse in Westminster including iconic senior members of his own party. He held out long enough for files relating to the case to go missing.
(Westminster Paedophile scandal here)
With a complete disregard for the child victims, past and present and for justice, Cameron claimed that an inquiry may lead to a witch hunt against gays in general. Finally having been dragged kicking and screaming into holding an inquiry, his choice to lead it Baroness Butler-Sloss, had to stand down because her impartiality could not be guaranteed.
During election times, politicians and their bureaucrats like nothing more than talking about their compassion for children, child poverty and their plans to deal with it, they are not so keen to talk about the innumerable paedophile scandals that have gone on for decades with their full knowledge and sometimes their facilitation.
Paedophilia is rife in Great Britain and it is beyond credulity to believe that the political class are serious about child welfare when at the same time they do little to prevent child sex abuse then cover it up when it is made public.
(UK paedophilia here)
(A previous article here)